register to NOT be an organ donor

[francolettieri]

An idea I had that I wanted to let float in this forum to get some feedback or whether its a good or bad idea. Right now as everyone knows you have to register to be an organ donor and even thats not enough. Your family also has to approve it in the event you die. I propose a system in which in which everyone is considered an organ donor UNLESS you sign up to not be. In other words a "REFUSE ORGAN DONATION" registry should be created and anyone not on it will have their organs harvested after an unfortunate death. I am also in favor of donating the organs of all prisoners who have been executed. People who register to not donate their organs probably should not be eligible to receive organs, but thats a whole different topic.

[rurallib]

1. Ya know - that's a pretty good idea

well except for the last part.

[Warpy]

2. That actually has been proven to widen the donor pool

in countries where it has been tried because of the natural disinclination of people to volunteer for anything, even when it means volunteering for a negative.

It's an idea whose time came a long time ago. Unfortunately, it takes a billy club to wake up elected officials to get bad policy changed.

[imdjh]

3. Shall I don the robes and howl at the moon for you?

I'll play the role of the opposition here.

"This is an attack on our religious liberty. The government is saying that unless you go out of your way to tell them not to, they will run roughshod over your religious beliefs. These liberals want to make religious people look foolish for their deeply held beliefs."

Those who believe in the physical resurrection think that your body needs to be intact. This belief is not limited to Jehovah's Witnesses and Latter Day Idiots, it's also deeply rooted in Orthodox Judaism.

[dustbunnie]

9. Oddly enough, proponents of these religions have no problem accepting organs.

God apparently doesn't like the dead knocking on heaven's door without all their organs intact. I wonder how he feels about people showing up with borrowed parts.

[imdjh]

11. Well, the others will claim that with universal donor, doctors will be quick to call brain death.

[dustbunnie]

16. Oh there's definitely something horror-flickish about it.

I could see your scenario happening actually, especially in cases where the family has influence and money.

From a philosophical standpoint, it seems like the benevolent thing to do. But the reality of it would be less so.

[Chan790]

15. Not the Jehovah's Witnesses...

I just left a job in Flatbush, Brooklyn less than a month ago. Flatbush has a lot of Witnesses because they've done a great-deal of ministry in the islands over the past 40 or so years and Flatbush is overwhelmingly West Indian.

One of my coworkers was telling me that they were trying to throw his mother out of the local temple(?, I'm not sure what the right term would be for a Witnesses' church building) because she'd been in a serious car accident and had left the card they're required to carry in their wallet declaring their non-desire to receive transfused blood or organs on her counter...and had been transfused. Apparently, they consider it vampiracy and the mark of Cain. I don't really know or understand...I'm an atheist raised UU, converted to Catholicism, decided that wasn't for me, went to Taoist, ended up realizing that religion isn't something for me; it all seems strange and fairy-tale wonderment. Oddly, I'm an ordained minister now...that's a long story for another day.

[michreject]

21. Tell them this

Jehovah's Witnesses
According to their National Headquarters, the Watch Tower Society, Jehovah’s Witnesses believe donation is a matter of individual decision. Jehovah’s Witnesses are often assumed to be opposed to donation because of their belief against blood transfusion. However, this merely means that all blood must be removed from the organs and tissues before being transplanted. In addition, it would not be acceptable for an organ donor to receive blood as part of the organ recovery process.


This link covers all of the religions.

https://www.donatelifedc.org/facts/religious/#122

[Not Me]

17. They have to pay taxes, unless they file their exemption papers...

that doesn't seem to be a problem though.

[JonQ]

64. Taxes don't involve carving out pieces of your body

although sometimes it may feel that way.

[Toasterlad]

90. Out of Your DEAD (or Virtually Dead) Body.

Taxes are much more onerous to any sane person than mandated organ donation.

[GCP]

4. It IS a good idea, although I can imagine all the Libertarians pissing and moaning

About "Big Gubmint" taking over everything, and why should they have to opt out, why can't people opt in - although we all know that's not enough and an opt-out program would be ideal - they're not interested in helping their fellow members of the human race. Sorry about the long run-on sentence, but these Randian ass-holes really get me going.

[Toasterlad]

33. There Are Plenty Of People Right Here On DU Who Agree With Those Libertarians.

When I posted a similar Opt-Out treatise several years ago, I was bombarded by angry posters insisting that their body still belonged to them after they died, and that if the system were changed to opt-out, doctors would be letting people die right and left to get at their organs.

Irrationality is not limited to libertarians.

[rug]

5. If you don't pay your mandate they should put a lien on your kidney.

[WhollyHeretic]

6. I think people who are not organ donors should be put below donors on waiting lists

[Toasterlad]

29. Totally Agree.

[Bluebear]

75. We diverge . . .

People with HIV, etc cannot donate organs, even though they may desire to do so.

[Toasterlad]

88. I'm Taking That As a Given. I'm Only Referring to People Who Are Actually Donor Candidates.

If you can't be an organ donor, it should certainly be listed in your medical history, and that should not be used to influence your position on a donor list. I'd put people unable to donate above those able but unwilling to donate.

[DarbyUSMC]

48. I'd guess that most people waiting for an organ of one kind, are not able to be donors of any organ.

Maybe there are some whose bodies haven't been ravaged by side effects of meds or underlying diseases. My kidneys are dead but my liver is OK and my lungs are good. There may be a rule though. I'm donating my body to medical research so they can use any part they deem useable.

If the family wants the ashes it is $15.00 for registered mail. No other costs. Simple Simon. Folks out there are lamenting about the high cost of funerals. It's called Anatomy Gifts Registry for anyone that is interested.

http://www.anatomicgift.com/


http://whisperingriver.homestead.com/LivingWithoutKidneys.html

[SemiCharmedQuark]

53. I agree. At least then people would have an incentive to donate other than goodwill

Which obviously isn't enough of an incentive.

[Luciferous]

54. Good idea nt

[Bluebear]

74. And if they have HIV or other bloodborne illnesses and cannot donate?

[iamjoy]

7. Serious Flaws Here

You say "people who register not to donate their organs probably should not be eligible to receive organs."

Well, people who need some kind of organ transplant probably have some sort of underlying or serious medical condition that would likely exclude them from having viable organs.

Also, what if some one who does have a serious health problem forgets to opt out of organ donation? Say for example, a person with HIV or who has had lymphoma?

Overall, though, I think you have a GREAT idea. We don't do nearly enough to encourage organ donation.

[rucky]

8. Organ donation seems like a no-brainer to me.

I wonder why so many people refuse.

[Shell Beau]

71. I think it is nothing but fear.

Fear of death.

I have told my family and friends that I would like to donate whatever is usable. I also have it on my DL.

[dustbunnie]

10. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Although there are several really good reasons why it isn't. :D

But as leaps are made in the area of successfully harvesting and replacing organs, along with entire bodyparts such as hands and feet, reconstructing faces whole... more active encouragement is going to be a necessity.

[Jello Biafra]

12. I have one problem with this...

When organs are available, who gets them first? You guessed it...the ones with the money. When that young woman in CA needed a kidney and CIGNA didn't cover it initially, she died. Why? Their family didn't have the money for it. I guess if you want to see the well to do continue to be well to do, I guess you are for it. What you are considering is an organ farm for the wealthy.

BTW, when the technology is available to regrow organs, guess who will get those first?

[Dogmudgeon]

13. How about this: "No Health Insurance, No Organs"

That is, "If I can't have health insurance, you can't have my body parts".

Now, before the DU Hyperventilation and Pedo Frenzy Club has another public abreaction, allow me to clarify: All that would be required would be a small number of members and a skilled P.R. apparatus. Something that would catch public attention. Maybe an event or two like Organ Donor card burnings, like the public draft card burnings of 45 years ago.

All of this in the media -- in print, on the Internet, and on television.

A little guerrilla theater. Scare some people who are used to depending on a system that cuts many of us out of it.

Disclaimer: I am an organ donor and have worked in organ donor drives.

--d!

[liberalmuse]

14. I agree. It should be a given unless a person specifies otherwise.

It could help so many people.

[donco6]

18. It'll be opposed on religious grounds and lose.

Some religions object to organ donation. (Yet another reason to disdain religion, IMO)

[struggle4progress]

19. "We couldn't find a record of that." "If she ever opted out, the records must have been lost."

"For some reason, we couldn't locate that particular record until a week later"

It's a bad idea

[Davis_X_Machina]

20. This is one of the...

...'nudges' in Cass Sunstein's book of the same name, and the Religious Right hates it.

Of course, Sunstein is largely despised here, too.....

[Xithras]

22. It would never pass court review

Under our current legal system, a dead body is considered to be property, belonging to the next-of-kin. You'll run into 5th amendment issues unless you can determine a "market value" for each organ, and compensate the family for their "loss".

I don't agree with it, but that's our legal system, and you know as well as I do that some lawyer would have this suit in the courts within minutes of passing any law along these lines.

[debbierlus]

56. I agree - and you can't just default this type of thing

Too many religious, moral, and legal issues...

I AM an organ donor, so don't freep me so saying so!

[Upton]

23. Stupid idea..

I'm not an organ donor, and I refuse to be one as long the evidence continues to suggest that those with the money move to the top of the recipient list.

I shouldn't have to register to keep some fat cat from living high off the hog courtesy of my organs.

[Toasterlad]

25. Talk About Missing the Fucking Point...

:eyes:

The reason that people pay to move to the top of the donor list is because there aren't that many organs to go around. And the reason there aren't that many organs to go around is because most people aren't organ donors, and instead choose to let their organs rot in the ground and feed worms instead of going to people who could use them to, well, live.

So if you INCREASE the number of organs donated by making the donation system opt out, the supply goes UP, and then the chances of anyone who needs one, getting one, go up as well, WITHOUT having to pay their way to the front of the line.

Very simple equation.

[Thickasabrick]

78. Self Delete

[Shell Beau]

81. I will never know who gets my organs. It could be the worst person

on the planet, but that will not stop me from donating mine. I may end up being a person who needs organs. My child could need them. I will rely on the generosity of someone who decided to give their organs, or the generosity of their family if they are the deciders. It isn't about what could happen to your organs when you're gone, it doesn't really matter actually. You won't miss them either way. But if there is a chance that a life will be saved, then why not?

[SmileyRose]

24. NO

The very idea that society looks at a dead body like "pull a part" car junkyards is just wrong. IMHO. Imagine the poor spouse or adult child, grieving beyond all grief at the sudden unexpected loss, told "I'm sorry but we can't give you your loved one's body - your 20 yr old son did not sign the opt out papers so we are taking all his skin and hair and eyeballs and bones and about 30% of his arteries and his inner ears and all his body organs and we'll mail you what's left in a hefty bag when we are done."

No thanks but that's just wrong.

[Toasterlad]

27. My Poor Spouse Or Adult Child Would Find It Reprehensible To Allow My Organs...

...to decompose in the ground rather than helping to keep someone else alive.

Not being an organ donor is the most unimaginably selfish thing anyone could possibly do. It is, literally, the apex of selfishness. You are denying something to someone that they desperately need, and that you no longer have any use for, AND NEVER WILL AGAIN. BECAUSE YOU'RE DEAD.

That is some serious kind of selfish.

[sandnsea]

32. Cool.

Good to know you're not a complete asshole. :)

My mother had a heart transplant. The misinformation out there just slays me.

[SmileyRose]

131. I don't agree with you

No one has a right to my parts when I die any more than they have a right to break into my house and take my belongings away from me. My body was given to me. There's was given to them. That said, I am a strong believer in organ donation and IMHO it IS selfish to take body organs to the grave if they can be used to save a life.

However, I am not an organ donor anymore due to medical problems that make mine unsuitable. I am a body donor to Emory University School of Medicine. When I die, they will use me for practice and when I'm not suitable for that anymore they'll cremate me.

[Shell Beau]

91. I have to say that my mom was so sad that she didn't think

to give her dead son's organs away. She was so devastated by his sudden death at age 24 (car accident) that it never occurred to the family at the time. She wishes that his death could have saved someone else's life. It is as simple as that. Now those organs are gone. They did no one any good when they could have. We would've waited as long as it might have taken. I am sure there are some families out there that would not agree. His spirit lives on, but someone could have physically lived on with some of his organs. Imagine the families waiting for someone to be generous enough to give life to their loved ones.

[Dreamer Tatum]

26. So the government owns your corpse from the moment you die?

Not sure I like that at all.

[Toasterlad]

28. What Were You Going to Do With It?

Have your body stuffed and mounted? Get your body strapped to a motorcycle to jump the Snake River Canyon? Sent on a hot air balloon tour around the world?

Why the earthly fuck would anyone give a shit what happens to their body after they die? I will never, EVER understand that mentality.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. Whatever my family wants done with it, I suppose

which is the point.

And before you start foaming at the mouth, I am in no way religious.

[Toasterlad]

35. What Does Religion - OR Your Family - Have to Do With It?

When you are dead, you're not using your body anymore. Your family can't use it anymore, either. It's not like you wife can take you home and keep you in the bed to use like a sex doll. It's not like your kids can prop you up behind the wheel of the car so you can still drive them to soccer practice.

There is absolutely no practical use for your dead body other than to serve as an organ farm for those who desperately need them. Denying them that access is completely and totally irrational.

[Dreamer Tatum]

36. What does my FAMILY have to do with it, when I DIE?

I think that question pretty much ends all discussion.

[Toasterlad]

37. Exactly. What Does Your Family Have To Do With It?

Give me one thing your family can do with your corpse that's more socially responsible than donating the organs. Give me ONE thing, and I'll proclaim you correct.

[Dreamer Tatum]

38. "Hi, is everyone on the line? Great. President Palin asked me to

start the bidding for a healthy American kidney at $5000. Livers start at $10000. Heart valves start at $25000. Please wire all funds to the appropriate Cayman accounts."

"Yes, Mr. Jones, we did harvest a kidney from a recently deceased person, but your daughter's body rejected it. I think there is a company in the Cayman Islands that can help you find a better match...for a fee. Or we can try again with another kidney we have here."

I assume you're catching on.

And I also assume you're aware that many religions don't allow for organ harvesting. Are you saying you want the US government to abridge the Constitutional right to worship the religion of one's choice?

[Toasterlad]

39. There's the Potential For Abuse In ANY Sytem. That Doesn't Mean You Don't Use Them.

It just means you make sure that there is as much oversight as possible.

What the paranoid brigade always seems to forget, is that if there is a greater SUPPLY of organs, there will be less incentive to take them illegally.

[Dreamer Tatum]

40. Oh, oversight, That thing that has prevented all government fraud, ever.

Gotcha.

:eyes:

[Toasterlad]

42. And Once Again, You Overlook Supply and Demand.

All so you can feel better about letting your organs rot in the ground.

The world is insane.

[Dreamer Tatum]

43. If the sanity of the world depends on me agreeing with you

then I think we're all in big trouble.

[Toasterlad]

50. Sadly, I Agree.

If there are people that can't see the logic in such a slam-dunk issue as organ donation, the world is truly in a great deal of trouble.

[harun]

45. You assume someone is able to judge, for everyone, what is the socially responsible

thing to do and then that they must be forced to do it.

Both assumptions are false.

[Toasterlad]

49. Are You Even Remotely Familiar With the Concept Of Government?

[harun]

133. What you are advocating is authoritative totalitarianism, no thanks.

No matter how much you think it "makes sense".

Do you know how many people think their polices "make sense" in terms of being socially responsible? I'll give you the answer since this is proving difficult for you: EVERYONE.

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Didn't you ever see "Weekend At Bernie's"?

Death is not the end, Friend.

[Toasterlad]

52. I Would Rather Rot In the Ground Than Have to Hang Out With Andrew McCarthy

[Warren DeMontague]

69. He reminds me of Tucker Carlson.

Although for all I know, he's a wizened old graybeard, by now.

[Shell Beau]

73. And apparently even after all of that mess, he was still able

to walk around dead after some voodoo mess in part 2. I can't believe there was a part 2. I have seen the first one more times than I care to admit.

[sandnsea]

31. Organ donation should be a given, that's true

It amazes me that so many people haven't marked their drivers license or otherwise made sure their intentions are known.

For the most part, wealthy people do not move to the top of the list. My mother was on Medicare and Medicaid and the hospital and doctors figured out how to get her a heart. It's horrifically expensive to live with transplant medication and aftercare, which is something else a lot of people don't know. It's not something that some rich guy can just stroll into a hospital and get.

[DRoseDARs]

34. The Chinese have had great success with this ... with their executed prisoners.

Your heart (pardon the pun) is in the right place, but the abuse potential is extreme. The opt-in for organ donation is really the best option.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_transplant

[KT2000]

63. the disappeared Falun Gong

are suspected of becoming involuntary organ donors.
When China dropped their socialized medicine for all - the hospitals discovered that organ transplants were real money makers. Happened to coincide with the crackdown. A fact-finding mission from the US is convinced the people gathered up from the Falun Gong were used this way.

[csziggy]

41. Until July I was not listed as an organ donor

Though I knew my hubby would likely give permission for organs to be harvested from my body if they could be used.

Originally, I felt that organ transplants were too experimental and expensive, and that the quality of life for the survivors was not good enough to justify the pain and expense. And I knew that I would never be willing to accept an organ transplant for myself.

But medicine has improved in the last thirty years, transplants are better, prices would go down if more organs were available, and I won't be around if the choice needed to be made to harvest my organs. So when I renewed my driver's license this year I had them mark me as an organ donor for the first time. I doubt most of my organs would be useful, but it was a philosophical milestone for me to make this decision.

[ChoppinBroccoli]

44. This Might Seem Like A Strange Question, But.........

............do you happen to be a fan of Ricky Gervais? Because when I read your topic, I was like, "Man, I was just thinking the EXACT same thing just a few days ago!" Then it occurred to me WHY I was thinking the exact same thing. Because I had just listened to the sixth installment of the "Ricky Gervais Guide To........" series of podcasts (well, audiobooks, really), The Ricky Gervaise Guide To.....Society, which just came out on Tuesday. And in this podcast/audiobook, Ricky advances that theory, that you should have to affirmatively take steps to say you DON'T want your organs to be donated. It's a good idea, and it would be truly amazing if you happened to have it around the same time the latest Ricky Gervais Guide came out. If you did happen to lift it, you should give credit where it's due.

Regarding donation of the organs of executed criminals, it would likely be impossible. Depending on the manner of execution, most of the organs would be unusable due to the sheer amount of trauma they suffer. Observers can't see any external evidence of the horrendous things going on inside a person's body while receiving lethal injection because the first step is to administer a sedative that essentially paralyzes the person (and that's exactly WHY it's the first step--so people can observe without "getting blood on their hands," and having to see the person writhe in pain and terror). Most of the organs that a potential donee would want would be so damaged that they'd likely be unable to be used.

[Toasterlad]

51. The Opt-Out System Of Organ Donation Didn't Originate With Ricky Gervais.

Or with the OP. There are countries that have had this policy in place for years.

[MerryBlooms]

46. I was a donor for 33 years

But I'm no longer eligible. Both my sons are donors though, does that count?
Some of us are forced into 'REFUSE ORGAN DONATION' through no fault of our own. Oh well, one more death panel to deal with.

[Seldona]

55. Bad idea.

The chance for abuse is simply too high. Even our system today has its problems. Let's work on that instead of making it a requirement to turn over your body. It's just creepy.

[nemo137]

57. It gives me the creeps.

I acknowledge the rightness of donating organs, and I've been an organ donor since I was 16, but the idea that someone dies and their body becomes common property is just vaguely creepy, like something out of a twilight zone episode. I realize there's an opt-out in your scenario, but it seems to me that in order for anything to be done to or with your body, you must affirmatively agree to it. I mean, isn't that considered to be the basic point of having any sort of recognized bodily autonomy?

[Toasterlad]

59. How Can You Own Your Body If You're Dead?

[nemo137]

68. It's not about the being dead.

It's about making decisions while alive. I am of the opinion that we should have the right to affirmatively choose, to opt in, to anything having to do with our bodies. If I make the decision that I want to be buried with all of my organs, I have made that decision in life, and I would expect it to be respected after death. Similarly, if I decide to become an organ donor (which I have), I would expect my family to accept that I chose that.

It's not about ownership of the dead body, it's about respecting the decision that I, or anyone else, make while we are alive.

[Shell Beau]

76. It is creepy, but it is the right thing to do. I don't need anything

in my body after I am dead, but the thought of it while you are alive is creepy. Death scares a lot of people which is why I think many are hesitant to become donors. And many people are very adamant about having a burial and seeing the body. I am not sure how that works after donation. I guess they send you the body back? I will donate my organs. If I can help just one person with what I can no longer use, then that is great. There is no greater gift than the gift of life.

[muriel_volestrangler]

61. I'd find the idea of an individual owning a body even 'creepier'

Yes, people have autonomy - by definition, that's over one's own body. But when you're dead, you're not there to have autonomy.

The problem is that in the short time period in which organs can be used, the next of kin is often not in a good state to make any decision. I'd like the decision to be explicit, by the person, before they die - tell all adults they have to decide one way of the other, though they can of course change their mind. Make them sign a form when the leave school, immigrate into the country, renew their driving license etc. And the license isn't valid until they've made the decision.

[nemo137]

70. I don't have a problem with that.

So long as it's an opt-in. Require everyone to opt in or out when they , that's fine. It's the idea of making it an opt out, and removing the ability to make that decision (more accurately, yes, changing the default option) compromises the ability to make that decision over your own body while you're alive.

edit: durrr typo.

[Shell Beau]

77. Well who owns my body if I don't?

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. When you're no longer around to own it - maybe no-one should own it

and the nearest to that is treating it as 'commons' - so that if there's some use to be made of it, it's done, without money changing hands for it. If people really want to prevent someone getting a life-changing, or -saving, use from it, they should say so explicitly.

[StarfarerBill]

58. Sounds good to me.

I have no immediate family, so no one will care after I'm gone what happens to my body. I've requested cremation and burial next to my mother after all my usable organs are harvested; but if the powers-that-be want to grind my body up and use it as fertilizer, that's fine with me...as long as something of my physical being is put to some positive use.

[arcadian]

60. This thread is total bullshit.

Talk to any coroner and they will tell you that most cases where "organ donors" die the organs aren't capable of being sufficiently harvested anyway.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. And therefore you think there shouldn't be any organ donation at all?

Why does your observation make the thread "total bullshit"? The unsuitability of most bodies to be donors means that its more important that those that are suitable are used. Why do you think it's bullshit talking about organ donation?

[arcadian]

93. I think it's bullshit just to automatically harvest organs.

To have just be a mandate that you have to opt out of. Most people want to think that they are noble creatures saving some poor kid on a dialysis machine, though that does happen some times, most of the organs go completely wasted as they were unable to get them to the recipients in time, guess where those end up? Yup, the trash. Also, a considerable amount of donated organs go to college medical schools.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. "a considerable amount of donated organs go to college medical schools"

There you are. That's useful, even if they can't be transplanted. Thank you for showing how important it is for everyone to think about having their bodies used after death.

[arcadian]

125. You go right ahead.

I won't do it. A final defiant act on my part.

[Fire1]

130. I'm with you on that one, arcadian. n/t

[JonQ]

65. I don't entirely disagree but I can see some issues with this

1) the notion that the government owns your body (my body my choice, except . . . ). Slippery slope.
2) means that some people are very valuable dead. Concerns about medical care arise, maybe some "accident" can conveniently befall a donor match right around the time your wife needs a new kidney.
3) a little more out there but once this is established I assume prisoners would be included as well? It wouldn't be fair otherwise. So that's a great incentive to push for the death penalty isn't it?

[KT2000]

66. For one thing, the shortage of organs

is a bit complicated. There are tons of people signed up to be donors but the problem is that deaths must occur within a time frame, the body must be within certain health parameters etc. I do not think that so many more donors will actually improve the supply. People are not dying in hospitals like they used to either.

I would be in favor of stopping all organ transplants. Watching the healthcare debate in this country has exposed how cold hearted and money/profit oriented this country is. The libertarians want to take this to a cash business and I could see this country supporting that.

We do not have our ethics in order in this country enough to cope with this issue.

[1]

67. gotta disagree on this one. my body, my choice... even after death.

[Toasterlad]

79. I'll Bet If I Peed On Your Dead Body, You Wouldn' t Raise a Finger To Stop Me.

[1]

82. once again, your contribution to the discussion is enormous. outstanding...

[Toasterlad]

86. As Was Yours. Rarely Have I Witnessed Such a Dizzying Intellect.

"My choice...even after death." The sheer non-idiocy of that statement is dazzling.

[1]

94. it's my body. my decision. not yours. not the governments. you don't understand that? it figures...

[Toasterlad]

97. There's No "You" After You Die. You Don't Understand THAT?

[1]

102. maybe not in your culture. it is you who does not understand...

[Toasterlad]

111. In NOBODY'S "Culture". In Your Particular Voodoo Belief, Possibly.

There's a difference between culture and religion. And in no religion in recorded history has a supreme being allowed you to take your organs with you when you die. Want to go over to Egypt and check some ceramic jars? They're not empty. They're filled with the remains of all the organs that were supposed to go with the body to the next world.

Your god doesn't need your organs. People here on Earth, in the real world, do. Not letting them have them would make you a dick, plain and simple. But even if you want to be a dick, we're still letting you have that option. If your "choice" means so much to you, MAKE IT KNOW. Declare that you DON'T want to save lives, that you'd rather your organs rot in the ground than go into some child's body. Your "choice" is still available to you in this world. Opt-out wouldn't change that one bit. All it would do is require that you publically acknowledge your willingness to let a child (or children) die.

Because that's so very christian.

[1]

112. you have much to learn. you are ignorant and arrogant in your statements...

[Toasterlad]

115. Teach Me, Oh Wise One. Show Me Where Organs Have Been Taken Unto Heaven.

Name one time. ONE TIME.

[1]

118. it is my choice. that is all you need to know...

[Toasterlad]

121. It Sure Is.

Hope no one you love needs an organ transplant.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

72. We should just change it to where the family doesn't have to approve if you already volunteered.

That's messed up.

I am an organ donor, but I seriously doubt my parents would approve if they have to give permission.

[Thickasabrick]

80. Because of past melanoma, I can't be a donor. Don't automatically

assume that people who are not donors just don't want to be. There are valid reasons for not being donors.

[Shell Beau]

83. I am sure there are, but you aren't a candidate so it wouldn't be an issue.

And I am sorry about the melanoma. Glad you made it through that.

[Toasterlad]

84. As Always Whenever This Topic Comes Up, People Are Glossing Over That It's Still a Choice.

If you truly feel that strongly about taking your organs to the grave with you and letting them rot away as wormfood instead of donating them to someone who could actually use them to keep on living, you can still make that incredibly selfish decision very, very easily with an opt-out system. Just have it indicated on your driver's license that you're a selfish prick who is taking his organs with him to the afterlife just to spite the living. That way, you won't have to worry about all those scary organ dealers who are just waiting to get you unconcious in a hospital for five seconds so they can begin carving you up. 'Cause THAT'S a rational fear.

People make me fucking SICK sometimes.

[nemo137]

113. Right, but the choice should be "I choose to" not "I choose not to"

Human beings should have the right to decide what to do with their bodies, and it's important that that right is affirmative, that the decision is being made actively. It's about maintaining a degree of personal autonomy, about owning oneself, rather than simply renting your body until you die.

[Toasterlad]

119. It's About Letting Children DIe Because People Are Creeped Out Thinking About Their Own Dead Body

THAT'S what it's about.

If you are going to be selfish enough to let people die unnecessarily, you should have to declare it.

[nemo137]

124. No, it's about whether one has the rights to make the decision about what happens to my remains.

Again, for the record, I have been a donor since I've had a license, and I've re-signed every time I've renewed, and my parents are aware of my wishes, and my mother (at least) will respect them. However, if we're going to have a societal expectation that people have the final say about what is done to or with their bodies, then it needs to extend to decisions about what is done with the body after death.

[Toasterlad]

126. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT!

What the FUCK is so onerous to people about saying they DON'T want to be on organ donor instead of that they DO? Jesus fucking christ on a jet-powered moped.

PEOPLE ARE DYING UNNECESSARILY, and you people are pissed because we want you to SAY you'd rather they die than live.

Fucking HELL.

I think I'd rather be alone for awhile.

[nemo137]

128. Onerous? Radically changing the nature of consent?

I want to have a consistent ethic that says "if things are done to or with your body, they are being done with your enthusiastic consent."

[Peacetrain]

85. Well I am going to be cremated. and they are welcome to any usable organs I have

Though with my history of ovarian cancer, it might not be wanted.

But having said that, it is my decision and the state has no right to any part of my body without my permission..

[Prism]

87. Your body is the ultimate piece of property

As such, I think it should default to your family or next of kin. I'm a donor, and I am all for as much organ donation as possible, but there is something very creepy about your body defaulting to the government. It isn't a simple matter of "You'll be dead, you won't care!" Probably not, but family and loved ones might.

Imagine if this principle applied anywhere else. "You don't have a will, so everything you owned is now going to the government." No, I would not want that. I would not want the government to have that power. My property, my decision. And if I didn't or couldn't make the decision, I'd want someone I love figuring it all out rather than a government bureaucrat. I shouldn't have to actively tell the government no in order to exercise the right to do what I wish with my own body. That's a bit insane.

When it comes to the power we give government, I'm far more comfortable with an affirmative being applied to permissions rather than a negative. When you give government the power to do whatever it likes unless someone actively says no, you've surrendered a strange swath of civil liberty ground to the power of the state.

It's not a slope I'm much interested in traveling down.

[Toasterlad]

92. Your Body Wouldn't "Default to the Government". Your Wishes Would Be Honored.

If you don't want your organs donated, you'd be free to say so.

It amazes me that people always read "opt-out" as "the governments going to rape my corpse!"

[Prism]

99. It's affirmative vs. negative

I don't want the government to assume it knows my mind and have the power to act accordingly. I don't want the fact that I've not said something to be legally interpretable as permission to the government to act against my person or property. It's not a matter of what happens to my body. I'll be dead. I wouldn't care if I appear stage center at a necrophilia convention. But my loved ones would care. Their well-being, even if only emotional, would be affected. I believe we should, by default, be free of government interference and authority unless we pro-actively request its presence in our lives.

The less government can assume when it comes to personal matters, the better off everyone is.

[Toasterlad]

103. The Government Is "Assuming" Nothing.

If it means that much to you that your organs don't save lives after you die, you would be free to specify that you don't want your organs used to save lives. If you don't care to make that effort, I guess it wasn't that important to you, was it?

[Prism]

109. It's an unacceptable shift in autonomy

Because it shifts the assumption from "the government cannot move against my person or property without express permission" to giving that power to the government unless I actively tell it no.

There are a lot of bad laws that start from that position. "We're going to jack up your property taxes something fierce, unless you can be bothered to go through records and file these seventeen forms to the local assessor, and . . ." It's horrid, and the government does that sort of thing all the time. Because they know, people are either ignorant that they have redress, or they find the actual method too troublesome to be managed.

Not only laws, but look at financial companies and corporations. "Well, if you don't actively tell us not to fuck you over, we get to fuck you over!" Giving any powerful organization that default ability never ever comes to any good.

It's an entire legal area that was a bad idea when they first started doing it. Extending it to some of the most personal decision-making possible is that much worse.

[Toasterlad]

114. If It's That Important To You That Your Dead Body Not Be Used To Save Lives, You Should Say So.

I don't think that's unacceptable. I don't think checking off a box on your driver's license is unacceptable.

I DO think it's unacceptable that people take their organs to the grave when they could be going to save children's lives. All because it's too intrusive of the government to require that you specifically STATE that you don't want to save children's lives.

THAT'S what I find unacceptable.

[Prism]

122. Well, that's your framing

We're veering into a kind of "Why don't you like puppies?!" territory, as if opposition to this involves a callous disregard for life. It doesn't. There are a lot of things I, personally, might want the government to do to improve this or that aspect of culture and society.

However, at the end of the day, we have to recognize that even if the intentions are good, giving the government certain powers often results in horror down the road that is built on the framework we provided it. This is one of those areas for me. I don't want the government having assumed powers over persons and property - especially the ultimate property - without express consent given that it may do so.

I absolutely loathe the idea of assumed consent and cannot support it - especially not involving such a private, familial matter.

[Toasterlad]

123. Opposition To This DOES Involve a Callous Disregard For Life.

Opt-out would increase the organ supply, which would save lives. Doing nothing does not increase the organ supply, which means more people will die.

THAT IS THE BOTTOM LINE.

You can wrap it up in your irrational fear of the government disobeying your clearly stated wishes all you want. Opposing opt-out means you are willing to let more people die than would otherwise die.

You should be honest about it.

[nemo137]

127. This is veering dangerous.

To what extent do other people have a right to determine what we do with our bodies?

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. There's a world of difference between goods that can be left in a will

and a body which would be cremated or buried, and thus of no use, practical or aesthetic, to anyone. The next of kin doesn't really get the body as 'property' anyway; they can't say "I'm going to sell it to the highest bidder".

[pitohui]

100. only because the rich don't want us to sell it to the highest bidder

they like the system as it is, where steve job gets an organ and if you drink a glass of wine at your daughter's wedding you don't because you're nobody --

are you truly this naive?

i'd rather my remains be cremated than have my organs harvested and given to those folks who have spend their lives walking on my face, maybe you're all jesus, but guess what i'm not jesus

if those folks want my remains, they can 1) treat me better now (give me universal health insurance for one) and 2) if they want to mine my fucking body for gold they'd better pay my fucking family like it's gold

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. I had no idea you were so uber-capitalistic

You want to restrict the supply of organs even more, in a system that you believe gives organs to those who pay the most for them? So that you make sure only the really rich get them, because the supply goes down?

Where do you get this idea that only the rich get organs? Link, please. And one that says that anyone whose ever drunk any alcohol is not eligible for any kinds of transplantr.

[pitohui]

110. link please anyone you ever met who got a transplant

i don't have to link life experience, sorry -- you can believe me or not that i've never met anyone who actually got a transplant other than excuse, but maybe my bitterness on the topic might be some evidence?

the only transplant i'd be willing to give is a cornea transplant because i think real people actually do get them

i don't know anyone who ever gets a kidney, they get dialysis -- it's big business around here

a liver, forget it

i get my ideas from what i see around me and from not having had health insurance for a lot of years so i've had to face reality instead of bullshit

[muriel_volestrangler]

116. I'm not asking for your personal experience, I'm asking for a realiable source

Here, I'll give you one:

A Monument toddler in need of a second multi-organ transplant will receive Medicaid funding after her family’s plight became mired in red tape and triggered a media frenzy.
Officials with the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing announced minutes ago that Emerson White, 2, will be covered by Medicaid after her family was initially told it would be cut off effective Jan. 31.
Emerson was born with an unnamed metabolic disorder that left her unable to digest food. In June, she underwent a rare transplant of the small intestine, liver and pancreas at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, one of the only such hospitals to perform such procedures.
She has remained at the hospital, and on New Year’s Eve, her family learned her new small intestine had died, leaving her to go through it all over again.
A few days later the family was informed the Medicaid funding it was relying on would end, because she’d exceeded her allowable hospital stay.
After an inquiry from The Gazette and ensuing widespread media coverage in Colorado and Nebraska, Medicaid officials have spent the last week in phone calls and poring over regulations to restore funding. About 1 p.m., officials arrived at a solution that will help Emerson avoid a lapse in coverage.

http://pikespeakhealth.freedomblogging.com/2009/01/22/monument-girl-will-receive-medicaid-for-next-transplant/516/

See? A transplant on Medicaid twice.

Your turn. And you can explain why you're so keen to keep the supply of organs restricted, while you're about it.

(My personal experience is fairly irrelevant- I'm in Britain, and transplants are done under the NHS.

[Prism]

106. I'd rather have them as custodians

When it comes to my life and all it encompasses, whether I'm alive or dead, I'd very much rather have loved ones making decisions instead of the government. They know me, they know my mind, they know my desires far more than a nameless government agent. In life, human concern extends to wondering and planning for how their family will fare after death. Whether that be financial, or emotional, or knowing their children will be cared for. Our plans don't stop at death, and our legal options don't cease with our death. Everything about our lives should be, to the maximum extent possible, free of direct government control.

That sounds very libertarian, perhaps, but I feel that giving the government this default power over our bodies, even after death, is a chipping away of our autonomy.

[pitohui]

95. yeah well when there's universal health care for all get back to me

i went 15 years w.out health insurance or health care, i know plenty of people who fucking died because they didn't have health insurance/health care

i'm not gonna donate my organs so fucking steve jobs can live forever, the rich already out live the blue collar folks by more than a decade

look it up if you're not ashamed to

i'm not giving my organs away so that every rich fuckwit doctor, hospital, and steve jobs can profit, while my own family gets nothing

change the law so that my own family can at least get a few bucks from my donation and i'll change my mind

if i ever need an organ, i WON'T get one, if my husband ever needs an organ, he WON'T be eligible, actually we both have reasons we wouldn't be eligible, so i'm not clear on why i should donate so that rich fucktards can out live me, trust me, they already do that by a wide margin

we live in a capitalistic country, PAY MY FAMILY FOR MY FUCKING ORGANS OR GET OFF MY LAWN

fucking cannibals can't stop feeding on me even when i'm fucking dead, it's disgusting and these people have no fucking shame

most of the people on DU are in for a shock if they think they would ever receive an organ, for one thing, a pretty good percentage of them smoke, drink, or gasp smoke pot -- they won't receive a transplant (well unless they're larry hagman or steve jobs, in which case it's perfectly fine if you smoke, drink or gasp smoke pot)

[Toasterlad]

98. Now THAT Is the Best Answer Yet. You're Going to Let Your Organs Rot to Spite Steve Jobs.

The world is truly doomed.

[pitohui]

104. you know what? the world rotated without me and steve jobs and it will continue to rotate

the world is not doomed

people die, and it's OK, and everybody thinks it's perfectly OK as long as it's you and me

the world will not stop turning on its axis when steve job or larry hagman dies, you know what, NOBODY is that fucking important that they need to tear my liver out of my body for free and give my family fuck all

the surgeon gets paid

the hospital gets paid

the insurance co. gets paid

why shouldn't my family, the owner of the resource, get paid? you think it's right for the only entity on this list who has NOTHING to get stuck with a $20K funeral bill instead of getting paid?

it makes no sense but as long as stupid people are happy to sell themselves for nothing the honest whore can't make a profit

you make a mighty argument for why it's wonderful for the little man to get fuck all and i have to ask you, stop and think, who taught you that argument? why on earth do you think it's progressive that everyone except the little guy who provides the single most essential element of the procedure get nothing?

[Toasterlad]

105. I Dearly Hope No One In Your Family Ever Needs an Organ.

They shouldn't have to pay for the selfishness of people like you.

[pitohui]

107. no one in my family would receive an organ (nor would anyone in your family receive an organ)

you live in a dream world

you are happy to bare your throat to the rich and tell them, take, drink

sorry, sweetie, i think you're prob. a better human being than i am but at the end of the day, you're not helping real people down on the ground


how many people do you know who need new livers and kidneys? how many of those people ever got one?

in my case, the answer to the first question is many, the answer to the second is zero

dialysis is good enough for the "little people"

[Toasterlad]

117. And Yet, My Uncle DID Receive a Liver.

And he doesn't make over $65K a year. And he knows no one who manages any donor list.

Your hatred for rich people could very well kill poor or middle-class people.

[Omaha Steve]

101. Great idea

I'm listed on my drivers license. Don't know what the actual law is.

K&R!

OS

[iris27]

129. Right, because there's no chance those opt-out records wouldn't be mixed up

in a world where we need double- and triple-checks to make sure a hospital patient isn't given someone else's medication.

I watched doctors pressure my family into unplugging my uncle (who was only 46!) from his ventilator while he was fighting sepsis acquired from THEIR deliberately slow, shitty treatment after heart surgery. He didn't have insurance, and all they cared about was getting him out their doors as quick as possible, whether alive or dead, didn't matter.

It doesn't take much extrapolation for me to see the same doctors doing the same thing to families of borderline patients with harvestable organs.

Also, as someone who watched my high school classmates play catch with a human brain when we visited the local medical school, I'm quite sure I'd rather my remains rot than be donated to a med school.

[GeorgeGist]

132. More adanced societies (eg. France and Belgium) have had this system for years ...

so of course it must be bad. :sarcasm: