The Federal Government is examining ways of improving organ donor rates. A Westpoll last week revealed that more than 70 per cent of West Australians backed an opt-out system.
Oh noes.
You know what that tells me? That with legally-binding (family can't object) opt-in and universal polling you'd achieve well over a 70% donor rate...assuming that there are more than a handful like myself who are donors but oppose opt-out. What's the rate now (of people who opt-in)?
From reading the earlier bits of the thread, opting-in with a checkbox isn't really considered consent, and that's why it's not legally binding and families can still object.
Which is why I very clearly suggested that we make it legally binding. Hell, make it an entire separate form that you are required to fill out and sign in the clerk's presence (and make the clerk a notary) in order to get your <license/treatment/tax refund/whatever>.
Please stop ignoring parts of my argument to create flaws that don't exist. I'm well aware of the flaws with the current opt-in system, and I'm suggesting a solution.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
Okay, so set it up such that if the family can prove in court that the deceased opted out, they get the organ back. Now somebody dies either way. Would you still be comfortable with opt-out?
EDIT: Keep in mind that my alternative is not the status quo, but opt-in with universal polling (and no familial objections allowed).
Yeah, the socialism was what was wrong with the Reichstadt, not the fascism or the batshit-insane dictator. That's also probably the best-functioning example of socialism ever. Seriously, "zomg Nazis!" isn't a valid counter-argument.
The Federal Government is examining ways of improving organ donor rates. A Westpoll last week revealed that more than 70 per cent of West Australians backed an opt-out system.
Oh noes.
You know what that tells me? That with legally-binding (family can't object) opt-in and universal polling you'd achieve well over a 70% donor rate...assuming that there are more than a handful like myself who are donors but oppose opt-out. What's the rate now (of people who opt-in)?
From reading the earlier bits of the thread, opting-in with a checkbox isn't really considered consent, and that's why it's not legally binding and families can still object.
Which is why I very clearly suggested that we make it legally binding. Hell, make it an entire separate form that you are required to fill out and sign in the clerk's presence (and make the clerk a notary) in order to get your <license/treatment/tax refund/whatever>.
Please stop ignoring parts of my argument to create flaws that don't exist. I'm well aware of the flaws with the current opt-in system, and I'm suggesting a solution.
The ease of that depends on why it's not legally binding. Is it not legally binding just for this, or is box-ticking generally not considered consent. I don't know that, so I don't know how easy the implementation of that plan is.
So, I'll just focus on the proposed plan. The drawback of which is that a dead person with no family or indicated preferences would get their organs taken out, even thought they might not wanted that to happen. Which isn't really a drawback.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
Okay, so set it up such that if the family can prove in court that the deceased opted out, they get the organ back. Now somebody dies either way. Would you still be comfortable with opt-out?
EDIT: Keep in mind that my alternative is not the status quo, but opt-in with universal polling (and no familial objections allowed).
That's not an argument against opt-out, that's more an argument against laws that let you sue people to death. I think that in that situation the court should say that the family can't have the organ back as someone is currently using it.
I guess as long as someone benefits, ethics be damned.
The NAZIs did that too, seems to be a socialist ideal. Yeah, that's right, I said NAZI.
So you'd rather trample the beliefs of the person who wanted to opt in? Are you going to explain why those beliefs mean jack shit? Because one way or another, someone's beliefs are going to suffer at one point because of a paperwork screw up. Except you apparently think it's better someone who never believed in Orthodox Judaism died for their beliefs rather than someone's family that was against transplants suffer indignity.
Edit: Also, religion or finding something icky =/= ethics.
The ease of that depends on why it's not legally binding. Is it not legally binding just for this, or is box-ticking generally not considered consent. I don't know that, so I don't know how easy the implementation of that plan is.
So, I'll just focus on the proposed plan. The drawback of which is that a dead person with no family or indicated preferences would get their organs taken out, even thought they might not wanted that to happen. Which isn't really a drawback.
For the first paragraph, I think making the sticker or whatever on the DL should be an indicator of formal legal consent rather than the existing system of the individual's informal consent would do the trick. There has to be a system to look up particular individuals to check if they have cancer, aids, or some other known but not quickly testable disease. This way a doctor could assume organ donation from the DL alone while the paperwork and oversight is taking place.
As to your second point, I could argue that by default a person's possessions and wealth belong to that person and upon death will be distributed as that person wishes or to his or her next of kin. However, since this thread has already been Godwined, let's see what I can do here...
A fetus is considered part of the mother in both the US and Aus. Would you support a policy of assumed consent to abortion in the case that the mother slipped into a coma even though she might not want that to happen?
Don't even bother arguing against that last point. I'm already conceding it.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2008
Man there are so many bad comparisons, strawmen, and slippery slopes in this thread I feel I'm in a bizarro debate competition.
A bit of academic research supporting opt out (presumed consent) schemes. I can get a lot more if its needed.
Surveys show that 90% of the UK population support organ donation, yet our current law assumes, when people die, that they are in the minority who do not wish to donate. By changing the default position to presumed consent—assuming people want to donate unless there is evidence to the contrary—we can help save and transform more lives while respecting the wishes of those who want to donate and protecting the rights of those who do not.
Although 90% of the population support donation, only 23% have registered their wish to donate, and so the decision falls to the family when they have just been told that their relative has died or is dying. Not surprisingly, when they do not know their relative's wishes a large number (40%) opt for the default position, which is not to donate.
A move to presumed consent is the way forward. It would be:
Good for those who support donation—because they have to make no effort to ensure their wishes are followed
Good for those who oppose donation—because their wishes will be formally recorded and must be followed
Good for families—because they are relieved of the burden of decision making when they have just been told their relative has died or is dying
Good for those who need a transplant—because with more organs available more lives can be saved.
English, Veronica (2007) Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? Yes. British Medical Journal.
She is the deputy head of medical ethics, British Medical Association.
An EU study on the issue
This study confirms and develops further previous research findings that presumed consent organ donation policy positively affects the willingness of individuals to donate their own organs and those of relative by highlighting the importance of awareness of this regulation and an individual's level of social interactions in making choices about donation.
This study shows that decision making about organ donation by relatives of the deceased rather than the potential donor prior to death may have a downward impact on organ supply. This result is consistent with Johnson and Goldstein's finding that family objections to a love one's consent might play a role in determining actual donation rates [8]. Reluctance on the part of relatives is not surprising however, because of the emotional factors incorporated into making decisions for someone else posthumously with perhaps little or no insight into that individual's wishes. Decisions made about donating a relative's organs are often made under a quick and stressful situation where the default 'no' position seems safer [29].
Furthermore, we have found that countries with presumed consent regulation have a higher willingness to donate, especially if this policy is enforced. This finding supports previous research showing that presumed consent legislation increases organ procurement levels
You know I can't help but feel that mcdermott is actually right in terms of simply improving opt-in donor systems.
I was giving it some thought and I realized that before you had any opt-out system come in, ideally you'd run a massive awareness campaign and the like since people need to know they have to opt-out. But of course, presumably, you'd bias this campaign anyway to "reasons you shouldn't opt out" and naturally of course these are essentially "reasons you should opt-in".
By itself this isn't enough though because the whole drivers license deal isn't legally binding (which pisses me off and I'm going to go get the necessary paperwork to make it legally), but if we made it so when you did that it could be legally binding (coupled with the appropriate media campaign) then really, would we end up in a situation with so few donors from opt-in?
Or, I suppose what I'm asking is, do we have statistics for how many people are donors according to their drivers license, compared to how many potential donors we think there are?
You're confusing 'colder' with 'fucking retarded'. If the goal is to save more lives, then we should let more people to die prematurely to get their organs to save other people from dying?
How do you get inconsistency from that? Please, tell me.
No - "fucking retarded" is going all out for a system that shits all over peoples beliefs, is more prone to error and takes advantage of the vulnerable and mis-informed, when organ donation rates canbe vastly improved through far more simple and more effective measures, which neither require the circumvention of consent nor the sacrifice of peoples current trust in the medical system to respect them.
Of course dropping road safety isn't top of the list of ideas - but it would produce more donors (again old folks and the diseased don't benefit the figures) and according to the prevailing logic that saving lives is more important than anything else, then yes, by that warped logic 1 car crash victing potentially equals multiple organ transplants. But a point that people may potentially die for fear of going to hospital and not having filled out the correct paperwork was met with, shall we say, "lack of sentiment" and regarded as acceptible loss - equally retarted, yet supported with the same logic. I would say that's a tad inconsistent, no?
If the goal is to save lives, then you tackle the primary issues affecting the system.
The reason for the spiraling growth in need for organs - it's not the input that's changed, it's the demand. A hint would be that in the UK, the organs in fastest growing demand are.. livers. Funny and true, which leads me to..
People are upset about the poor figures for deceased donors, but the live donor situation makes that look like an insurmountable success. Live donoration has a higher success rate, is far more likely to produce a match and has the potential to remove massive numbers from the transplant lists, both through increased input and reduced wastage through organ rejection. This one gets ignored because, apparently, saving a life is, again, only paramount if it doesn't inconvenience those who believe strongly in it. Even live donor rates among family are terrible, and they're the people who can best be said to hold some responsibility for the person needing a transplant.
As much as I love arguing rotting corpses with people who hate actual accurate and descriptive terms, the fact is that "rotting", "worm food", "meat" and "decaying corpse" are about as wrong as you can get when referring to potential donors. Unfortunately, worm food doesn't cut it and so hospitals have to keep potential donors alive, which requires a lot of resources, not least of which being beds - ICU beds. No bed = wasted donor. Now given that the systems in place already have chronic shortages of these vital resources, many donors go to waste. Given this problem occurs now, with current opt-in systems, where's the benefit of throwing in more bodies without beds to keep them viable? But of course, the math is "more bodies = more lives saved" right? because apparently that's all that comes into it..
Like the last one, the real solutions require money and unfortunately the belief in life is so strong that people are unwilling to part with money to save it - and so look for easier options which won't cost them personally. Which leads us back to opt-out, which is not the hard choice, nor the effective choice, nor the life-saving choice. It's the scapegoat, and the easy choice for all those who care just enough to place the burden on someone else, rather than themselves.
You're confusing 'colder' with 'fucking retarded'. If the goal is to save more lives, then we should let more people to die prematurely to get their organs to save other people from dying?
How do you get inconsistency from that? Please, tell me.
No - "fucking retarded" is going all out for a system that shits all over peoples beliefs, is more prone to error and takes advantage of the vulnerable and mis-informed, when organ donation rates canbe vastly improved through far more simple and more effective measures, which neither require the circumvention of consent nor the sacrifice of peoples current trust in the medical system to respect them.
You're an idiot.
"shits over peoples beliefs" - Opt-out. Note the 'opt'. It means you don't have to donate organs if you don't want to.
more prone to error - Wrong.
Takes advantage of the vulnerable and misinformed - No, it benefits the sick and vulnerable people, it takes advantage of people whose beliefs are so unimportant to them that they will not simply check a box on a form to say they don't want to donate organs.
As benign dictator I mandate that these simpler and more effective measures be attempted for five years in one state on the federal government's dime and the opt out system be tried in another state on the federal government's dime. We'll revisit this issue in 2013 after the reports have been filed.
Takes advantage of the vulnerable and misinformed - No, it benefits the sick and vulnerable people, it takes advantage of people whose beliefs are so unimportant to them that they will not simply check a box on a form to say they don't want to donate organs.
Haven't the people arguing against opt-in been saying that it isn't as simple as checking a box? Why is say "omg you can opt out" any different from saying "omg you can opt in?"
Takes advantage of the vulnerable and misinformed - No, it benefits the sick and vulnerable people, it takes advantage of people whose beliefs are so unimportant to them that they will not simply check a box on a form to say they don't want to donate organs.
Haven't the people arguing against opt-in been saying that it isn't as simple as checking a box? Why is say "omg you can opt out" any different from saying "omg you can opt in?"
With one of the above choices, you're allowed to get the organs of the ignorant.
Especially them illegals. Not only can Jose cut your grass real cheap, but now you can get his strong, grass-cutting heart once he dies. After all, he didn't opt out. See, they really do get the jobs the rest of us don't want to do.
One of the above paragraphs is entirely facetious.
A bit of academic research supporting opt out (presumed consent) schemes. I can get a lot more if its needed.
Surveys show that 90% of the UK population support organ donation, yet our current law assumes, when people die, that they are in the minority who do not wish to donate. By changing the default position to presumed consent—assuming people want to donate unless there is evidence to the contrary—we can help save and transform more lives while respecting the wishes of those who want to donate and protecting the rights of those who do not.
Although 90% of the population support donation, only 23% have registered their wish to donate, and so the decision falls to the family when they have just been told that their relative has died or is dying. Not surprisingly, when they do not know their relative's wishes a large number (40%) opt for the default position, which is not to donate.
A move to presumed consent is the way forward. It would be:
Good for those who support donation—because they have to make no effort to ensure their wishes are followed
Good for those who oppose donation—because their wishes will be formally recorded and must be followed
Good for families—because they are relieved of the burden of decision making when they have just been told their relative has died or is dying
Good for those who need a transplant—because with more organs available more lives can be saved.
English, Veronica (2007) Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? Yes. British Medical Journal.
She is the deputy head of medical ethics, British Medical Association.
See, and as far as I can tell opt-in with convenient universal polling (and legally binding with no familial objections) achieves all of the above benefits. Except perhaps the "no" effort part...it would instead be "very little" effort, and zero effort over opting out (in other words, laziness would not be an excuse for not being a donor).
And with 90% support for opt-out, you'd think that this would have (statistically) the same effect on the organ pool that moving to opt-out would.
While I realize that "opt-in with convenient universal polling and no familial objections" sounds so much more complicated than "opt-out" (a lot of words, and all), really it's pretty simple. A short, likely separate, form you read and sign when you're getting your driver's license (or whatever), in which you must make an explicit yes or no choice (no default, unlike most current systems where it's check the box for yes or do nothing for no). Done.
Also, if (as Elki suggested) the family can still object under an opt-out system, then how does this relieve them of the burden of making a decision? If they can still object, they're still stuck with the decision whether or not to allow it. And if they can't, then that opens a whole new can of worms (since he was suggesting this would only affect dying people without strong objections and no living family).
I fail to see how having each person make an explicit legally binding decision is somehow the inferior system.
Takes advantage of the vulnerable and misinformed - No, it benefits the sick and vulnerable people, it takes advantage of people whose beliefs are so unimportant to them that they will not simply check a box on a form to say they don't want to donate organs.
Haven't the people arguing against opt-in been saying that it isn't as simple as checking a box? Why is say "omg you can opt out" any different from saying "omg you can opt in?"
With one of the above choices, you're allowed to get the organs of the ignorant.
Especially them illegals. Not only can Jose cut your grass real cheap, but now you can get his strong, grass-cutting heart once he dies. After all, he didn't opt out. See, they really do get the jobs the rest of us don't want to do.
One of the above paragraphs is entirely facetious.
Note that at least a couple people arguing for opt-out have explicitly stated as a benefit that they'd get the organs of at least some who would otherwise have objected (thus increasing the pool).
With one of the above choices, you're allowed to get the organs of the ignorant.
Especially them illegals. Not only can Jose cut your grass real cheap, but now you can get his strong, grass-cutting heart once he dies. After all, he didn't opt out. See, they really do get the jobs the rest of us don't want to do.
One of the above paragraphs is entirely facetious.
While I realize that "opt-in with convenient universal polling and no familial objections" sounds so much more complicated than "opt-out" (a lot of words, and all), really it's pretty simple. A short, likely separate, form you read and sign when you're getting your driver's license (or whatever), in which you must make an explicit yes or no choice (no default, unlike most current systems where it's check the box for yes or do nothing for no). Done.
Also, if (as Elki suggested) the family can still object under an opt-out system, then how does this relieve them of the burden of making a decision? If they can still object, they're still stuck with the decision whether or not to allow it. And if they can't, then that opens a whole new can of worms (since he was suggesting this would only affect dying people without strong objections and no living family).
I fail to see how having each person make an explicit legally binding decision is somehow the inferior system.
Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.
You're confusing 'colder' with 'fucking retarded'. If the goal is to save more lives, then we should let more people to die prematurely to get their organs to save other people from dying?
How do you get inconsistency from that? Please, tell me.
No - "fucking retarded" is going all out for a system that shits all over peoples beliefs, is more prone to error and takes advantage of the vulnerable and mis-informed, when organ donation rates canbe vastly improved through far more simple and more effective measures, which neither require the circumvention of consent nor the sacrifice of peoples current trust in the medical system to respect them.
Of course dropping road safety isn't top of the list of ideas - but it would produce more donors (again old folks and the diseased don't benefit the figures) and according to the prevailing logic that saving lives is more important than anything else, then yes, by that warped logic 1 car crash victing potentially equals multiple organ transplants. But a point that people may potentially die for fear of going to hospital and not having filled out the correct paperwork was met with, shall we say, "lack of sentiment" and regarded as acceptible loss - equally retarted, yet supported with the same logic. I would say that's a tad inconsistent, no?
No, I don't know where you're getting the logic where purposely letting someone die to save another makes sense. It doesn't make sense, and I'm not about to pretend you do.
Haven't the people arguing against opt-in been saying that it isn't as simple as checking a box? Why is say "omg you can opt out" any different from saying "omg you can opt in?"
Yes.. yes they have.
The fun thing is, from what I've seen, in Australia (back down under again) you can do it as simply as registering online. they also have multiple types of donation distinguished as Consent and Intent. The distinction being that registering "consent" allows your wishes to be legally acted upon and recognizes your wishes alone. Intent on the otherhand states your wish to donate, but means you entrust that decision to be taken by your next of kin if such a time comes.
Interestingly, the "intent" option is actually very widely used (good percentage of the population on there) and easily the more popular option, with the vast majority of people seeming to prefer that their loved ones wishes be considered. It seems Sentiment and concern for the grieving isn't quite the niche it is assumed to be.
But this brings up the problem of encouraging people to talk about their choices with their family. Education, promotion and culture being the big thing and all that.
Also, if (as Elki suggested) the family can still object under an opt-out system, then how does this relieve them of the burden of making a decision? If they can still object, they're still stuck with the decision whether or not to allow it. And if they can't, then that opens a whole new can of worms (since he was suggesting this would only affect dying people without strong objections and no living family).
It doesn't, it actually makes the issue worse because it gives people even less reason to discuss the matter. If the one's who supposedly want to save a life don't discuss it now when know they have to make a choice, they're not about to when that need is taken away. Apathy strikes again..
Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.
I do, but I think it's mainly because I lend a lot more weight to religious objections than others here do. For instance, if somebody's organs were removed over their religious objections due either to error or not having family available to object or whatever reason, I'd say that harm has been done to them. Yes, even though they are dead. That's what happens when you believe in an afterlife.
Which is why not only do I think my system is superior, but why knowing that there is a superior system that minimizes this risk I have to oppose the opt-out system.
Track, why do you want to trample the beliefs of people who want the opt out? Why do you hate their religions and want to oppress them?
Edit: Basically what I'm asking is why do you want to shit all over their religion?
Which religion is it that forbids not donating your organs if indeed they are viable at the time of your brain death? I'd think their bible would be an interesting read.
EDIT: And also, how is this not addressed by my proposed alternative, which also minimizes trampling those whose beliefs prohibit donation?
I believe many Orthodox Jews believe they can't because it desecrates the body. Though that's being debated among the rabbis since there are other rules for donating organs to help people.
Edit: Looking further it seems that it doesn't go against either Christian or Jewish beliefs, though there are rabbis who disagree on the time of death and some congregations who think they need their organs for the resurrection.
Track, why do you want to trample the beliefs of people who want the opt out? Why do you hate their religions and want to oppress them?
Edit: Basically what I'm asking is why do you want to shit all over their religion?
Which religion is it that forbids not donating your organs if indeed they are viable at the time of your brain death? I'd think their bible would be an interesting read.
EDIT: And also, how is this not addressed by my proposed alternative, which also minimizes trampling those whose beliefs prohibit donation?
There's nothing to the contrary, it's just the fallacy that we have set of beliefs that are different so I need to invent a set of beliefs that may or may not be shared by my group to help defend against your counter argument.
This system hasn't existed for more than a hundred years, so, did that make the claims any less different 100 years ago? Because some religions want their dead to be completely in tact, why is that wrong? The system was put in to place to protect that belief. Yeah it's shitty, yeah people die because of it. But saying that we're shitting on the belief of a group of people that didn't exist until after said system was implemented is all sorts of logical fallacy.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
This system hasn't existed for more than a hundred years, so, did that make the claims any less different 100 years ago? Because some religions want their dead to be completely in tact, why is that wrong? The system was put in to place to protect that belief. Yeah it's shitty, yeah people die because of it. But saying that we're shitting on the belief of a group of people that didn't exist until after said system was implemented is all sorts of logical fallacy.
I didn't realize a person's beliefs lacked credit because they weren't as old as others.
As benign dictator I mandate that these simpler and more effective measures be attempted for five years in one state on the federal government's dime and the opt out system be tried in another state on the federal government's dime. We'll revisit this issue in 2013 after the reports have been filed.
Your proposal is far too logical and benign. Come on, if you're a real dictator you'll go with assumed consent for political dissidents while removing that whole "has to be dead first" requirement.
It would be interesting to see what a major media campaign combined with a mandatory DMV/tax option would do on a middle of the road state. You'd probably need to make the length of the study at least twice as long as the frequency the mandatory choice is presented (2 years for taxes, 10? years for DLs) to get meaningful results. Assuming that's the simpler option to which you're referring.
I think that the internet has been for years on the path to creating what is essentially an electronic Necronomicon: A collection of blasphemous unrealities so perverse that to even glimpse at its contents, if but for a moment, is to irrevocably forfeit a portion of your sanity.
Xbox - PearlBlueS0ul, Steam
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I believe many Orthodox Jews believe they can't because it desecrates the body. Though that's being debated among the rabbis since there are other rules for donating organs to help people.
Edit: Looking further it seems that it doesn't go against either Christian or Jewish beliefs, though there are rabbis who disagree on the time of death and some congregations who think they need their organs for the resurrection.
I didn't realize that mainstream Christian and Jewish beliefs were the only ones that mattered.
I'm also still failing to see how a system that takes measures to respect the wishes of both groups (those that wish to donate, and those that do not) isn't superior.
EDIT: In other words, I'm failing to see how a system that records the explicit consent (or lack thereof) isn't preferable to a system of either implied consent or a system of implied lack thereof. Unless, of course, your goal is to get the organs of those who would object (as some have explicitly stated). Hell, I'd say an explicit consent system might actually be better (as far as number of organs harvested) than an implied intent system (which, since Elki keeps pointing out that the family can object under this opt-out system proposed, is what I assume is being discussed). You know, with the whole "no familial objections" part and all.
This system hasn't existed for more than a hundred years, so, did that make the claims any less different 100 years ago? Because some religions want their dead to be completely in tact, why is that wrong? The system was put in to place to protect that belief. Yeah it's shitty, yeah people die because of it. But saying that we're shitting on the belief of a group of people that didn't exist until after said system was implemented is all sorts of logical fallacy.
I didn't realize a person's beliefs lacked credit because they weren't as old as others.
Because yours exists solely because said system existed. Without it, your beliefs have no bearing and we have a logical fallacy here. You can't say that since the system has been implemented, you don't agree with it because it ignores your beliefs that you created out of the rise of said system.
I'm just saying, they created the system to cater to a system of beliefs that they could see being ignored if they had went another route. Yours can't exist yet, because the system isn't in place.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm not arguing against that system and you know it. However Australia isn't going for that, they're going for opt out which I believe is superior to opt in, but not the one you proposed.
Edit: And I don't want my fundie family members making any decisions whatsoever about my body after death.
Because yours exists solely because said system existed. Without it, your beliefs have no bearing and we have a logical fallacy here. You can't say that since the system has been implemented, you don't agree with it because it ignores your beliefs that you created out of the rise of said system.
I'm just saying, they created the system to cater to a system of beliefs that they could see being ignored if they had went another route. Yours can't exist yet, because the system isn't in place.
Which logical fallacy is this? What the Hell are you talking about? How is it a logical fallacy at all? Because my beliefs for organ donation wouldn't have existed until it was invented isn't a fallacy.
Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.
I do, but I think it's mainly because I lend a lot more weight to religious objections than others here do. For instance, if somebody's organs were removed over their religious objections due either to error or not having family available to object or whatever reason, I'd say that harm has been done to them. Yes, even though they are dead. That's what happens when you believe in an afterlife.
Which is why not only do I think my system is superior, but why knowing that there is a superior system that minimizes this risk I have to oppose the opt-out system.
It's superior when you believe in an afterlife, which I have no reason to do and has no place in public policy. I'm OK with the religious objections argument when there's a family and no clear preferences, because of the trauma to said family if their wishes were not respected. Otherwise, meh.
I'm not arguing against that system and you know it. However Australia isn't going for that, they're going for opt out which I believe is superior to opt in, but not the one you proposed.
True. But because I place actual value on people's religious beliefs (no matter how out of the mainstream, provided they don't actively harm others), I see the opt-out system as incredibly flawed. See, I think harm can be done to somebody even though they're dead.
Which is why it's really awesome that there's this other possible system that has none of the flaws of an opt-out system while at the same time should (if everybody is as supportive of donation as opt-out would imply) have the exact same benefit to the organ pool.
Hence, because there is a flaw with opt-out and a better system that lacks that flaw is possible, I cannot support it.
But again, that's because due to that flaw I'd say opt-out is hardly better than opt-in, unless your only priority is saving lives over all else (since we've seen at least one story, on this page, the suggests that even under opt-in that consent isn't always respected). Or rather, if if your only priority is saving the lives of those living in first-world countries in need of organs over all else (no, I've not dropped that objection to those trying to lay claim to the moral high ground).
And this isn't like many other issues, where one might find themselves arguing against better in favor of best (even though best isn't possible, thus sacrificing better). I see no reason whatsoever that a population in favor of opt-out would somehow object to opt-in/universal-polling. Actually, it should just be called universal polling...because opt-in (or opt-out) both imply an implied default state, which this system doesn't particularly have. Because everybody's preference is explicitly recorded. Though I suppose for the .1% of the population that doesn't get polled you might have to decided whether to go with opt-in or opt-out...I think you know what my preference would be.
Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.
I do, but I think it's mainly because I lend a lot more weight to religious objections than others here do. For instance, if somebody's organs were removed over their religious objections due either to error or not having family available to object or whatever reason, I'd say that harm has been done to them. Yes, even though they are dead. That's what happens when you believe in an afterlife.
Which is why not only do I think my system is superior, but why knowing that there is a superior system that minimizes this risk I have to oppose the opt-out system.
It's superior when you believe in an afterlife, which I have no reason to do and has no place in public policy. I'm OK with the religious objections argument when there's a family and no clear preferences, because of the trauma to said family if their wishes were not respected. Otherwise, meh.
So, fuck your religious beliefs if you don't have a family, or if they can't be found (or if you can fudge the translation paperwork)? Yeah, sorry, I'm not supporting that policy.
EDIT: Especially when there is an alternative policy that nets us just as many of those sweet, sweet organs.
Because yours exists solely because said system existed. Without it, your beliefs have no bearing and we have a logical fallacy here. You can't say that since the system has been implemented, you don't agree with it because it ignores your beliefs that you created out of the rise of said system.
I'm just saying, they created the system to cater to a system of beliefs that they could see being ignored if they had went another route. Yours can't exist yet, because the system isn't in place.
Which logical fallacy is this? What the Hell are you talking about? How is it a logical fallacy at all? Because my beliefs wouldn't for organ donation wouldn't have existed until it was invented isn't a fallacy.
How would a system take into consideration a set of beliefs that didn't exist? It's sort of a false dilemma since a new solution would need to be implemented after the fact. This creates a circular cause and consequence since one will invariably ignore that of the other. And simply because it does this, we're going to ignore it because it's better for people? How is that right way? Opt-out is not the solution to opt-in.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
How would a system take into consideration a set of beliefs that didn't exist? It's sort of a false dilemma since a new solution would need to be implemented after the fact. This creates a circular cause and consequence since one will invariably ignore that of the other. And simply because it does this, we're going to ignore it because it's better for people? How is that right way? Opt-out is not the solution to opt-in.
Beliefs change and adapt over time to new advances in technology all the time. Just because organ donation is new doesn't mean people's belief that they should donate is less valid.
Edit: Also, this is in no way at all a false dichotomy. I don't think you know what that means.
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
That's great. My family could give a shit about what happened to someone else when I died. Yeah, they feel bad someone died but I'm their family. They care what happens to me over them.
You can't fucking measure grief. Grief is grief. I personally think someone grieving over a car accident is a little bit more important that someone grieving over a relative who they knew was dying. Yeah, still grief, but how are you going to measure it?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
That's nice McDermott, I'm all for your universal consent system, but that's not what's being argued. And I definitely believe the grief of a family losing a loved on is worse than that of a family finding out their relative's organs were accidentally removed because he never bothered to register or a paper work foul up.
Well, considering the former has likely had plenty of time to come to grips with the concept (considering that to my knowledge many diseases requiring organ donation don't just "pop up") whereas in the latter it's more of a "oh, hey, by the way, fuck you" I'd say it's a toss-up. Unless you just don't give any consideration to people's beliefs, which I think is the running theme here.
EDIT: Especially since presumably the family of the person whose organs were taken also just lost somebody.
Also, I didn't realize that when arguing a policy it was impossible to argue alternative, better policy changes instead.
Put me in the "I firmly oppose this policy because I have objections to it and there is a better and equally viable option" camp.
Posts
Which is why I very clearly suggested that we make it legally binding. Hell, make it an entire separate form that you are required to fill out and sign in the clerk's presence (and make the clerk a notary) in order to get your <license/treatment/tax refund/whatever>.
Please stop ignoring parts of my argument to create flaws that don't exist. I'm well aware of the flaws with the current opt-in system, and I'm suggesting a solution.
Okay, so set it up such that if the family can prove in court that the deceased opted out, they get the organ back. Now somebody dies either way. Would you still be comfortable with opt-out?
EDIT: Keep in mind that my alternative is not the status quo, but opt-in with universal polling (and no familial objections allowed).
The ease of that depends on why it's not legally binding. Is it not legally binding just for this, or is box-ticking generally not considered consent. I don't know that, so I don't know how easy the implementation of that plan is.
So, I'll just focus on the proposed plan. The drawback of which is that a dead person with no family or indicated preferences would get their organs taken out, even thought they might not wanted that to happen. Which isn't really a drawback.
That's not an argument against opt-out, that's more an argument against laws that let you sue people to death. I think that in that situation the court should say that the family can't have the organ back as someone is currently using it.
Edit: Also, religion or finding something icky =/= ethics.
Sounds like it's time to hit the Godwin's Law button.
For the first paragraph, I think making the sticker or whatever on the DL should be an indicator of formal legal consent rather than the existing system of the individual's informal consent would do the trick. There has to be a system to look up particular individuals to check if they have cancer, aids, or some other known but not quickly testable disease. This way a doctor could assume organ donation from the DL alone while the paperwork and oversight is taking place.
As to your second point, I could argue that by default a person's possessions and wealth belong to that person and upon death will be distributed as that person wishes or to his or her next of kin. However, since this thread has already been Godwined, let's see what I can do here...
A fetus is considered part of the mother in both the US and Aus. Would you support a policy of assumed consent to abortion in the case that the mother slipped into a coma even though she might not want that to happen?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Or a Fox News show.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/334/7603/1088
English, Veronica (2007) Is presumed consent the answer to organ shortages? Yes. British Medical Journal.
She is the deputy head of medical ethics, British Medical Association.
An EU study on the issue
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/8/48
Elias Mossialos, Joan Costa-Font, and Caroline Rudisill. (2008)
I was giving it some thought and I realized that before you had any opt-out system come in, ideally you'd run a massive awareness campaign and the like since people need to know they have to opt-out. But of course, presumably, you'd bias this campaign anyway to "reasons you shouldn't opt out" and naturally of course these are essentially "reasons you should opt-in".
By itself this isn't enough though because the whole drivers license deal isn't legally binding (which pisses me off and I'm going to go get the necessary paperwork to make it legally), but if we made it so when you did that it could be legally binding (coupled with the appropriate media campaign) then really, would we end up in a situation with so few donors from opt-in?
Or, I suppose what I'm asking is, do we have statistics for how many people are donors according to their drivers license, compared to how many potential donors we think there are?
No - "fucking retarded" is going all out for a system that shits all over peoples beliefs, is more prone to error and takes advantage of the vulnerable and mis-informed, when organ donation rates canbe vastly improved through far more simple and more effective measures, which neither require the circumvention of consent nor the sacrifice of peoples current trust in the medical system to respect them.
Of course dropping road safety isn't top of the list of ideas - but it would produce more donors (again old folks and the diseased don't benefit the figures) and according to the prevailing logic that saving lives is more important than anything else, then yes, by that warped logic 1 car crash victing potentially equals multiple organ transplants. But a point that people may potentially die for fear of going to hospital and not having filled out the correct paperwork was met with, shall we say, "lack of sentiment" and regarded as acceptible loss - equally retarted, yet supported with the same logic. I would say that's a tad inconsistent, no?
If the goal is to save lives, then you tackle the primary issues affecting the system.
The reason for the spiraling growth in need for organs - it's not the input that's changed, it's the demand. A hint would be that in the UK, the organs in fastest growing demand are.. livers. Funny and true, which leads me to..
People are upset about the poor figures for deceased donors, but the live donor situation makes that look like an insurmountable success. Live donoration has a higher success rate, is far more likely to produce a match and has the potential to remove massive numbers from the transplant lists, both through increased input and reduced wastage through organ rejection. This one gets ignored because, apparently, saving a life is, again, only paramount if it doesn't inconvenience those who believe strongly in it. Even live donor rates among family are terrible, and they're the people who can best be said to hold some responsibility for the person needing a transplant.
As much as I love arguing rotting corpses with people who hate actual accurate and descriptive terms, the fact is that "rotting", "worm food", "meat" and "decaying corpse" are about as wrong as you can get when referring to potential donors. Unfortunately, worm food doesn't cut it and so hospitals have to keep potential donors alive, which requires a lot of resources, not least of which being beds - ICU beds. No bed = wasted donor. Now given that the systems in place already have chronic shortages of these vital resources, many donors go to waste. Given this problem occurs now, with current opt-in systems, where's the benefit of throwing in more bodies without beds to keep them viable? But of course, the math is "more bodies = more lives saved" right? because apparently that's all that comes into it..
Like the last one, the real solutions require money and unfortunately the belief in life is so strong that people are unwilling to part with money to save it - and so look for easier options which won't cost them personally. Which leads us back to opt-out, which is not the hard choice, nor the effective choice, nor the life-saving choice. It's the scapegoat, and the easy choice for all those who care just enough to place the burden on someone else, rather than themselves.
Opt-out - in a nutshell: Unneccessary
You're an idiot.
"shits over peoples beliefs" - Opt-out. Note the 'opt'. It means you don't have to donate organs if you don't want to.
more prone to error - Wrong.
Takes advantage of the vulnerable and misinformed - No, it benefits the sick and vulnerable people, it takes advantage of people whose beliefs are so unimportant to them that they will not simply check a box on a form to say they don't want to donate organs.
Especially them illegals. Not only can Jose cut your grass real cheap, but now you can get his strong, grass-cutting heart once he dies. After all, he didn't opt out. See, they really do get the jobs the rest of us don't want to do.
One of the above paragraphs is entirely facetious.
See, and as far as I can tell opt-in with convenient universal polling (and legally binding with no familial objections) achieves all of the above benefits. Except perhaps the "no" effort part...it would instead be "very little" effort, and zero effort over opting out (in other words, laziness would not be an excuse for not being a donor).
And with 90% support for opt-out, you'd think that this would have (statistically) the same effect on the organ pool that moving to opt-out would.
While I realize that "opt-in with convenient universal polling and no familial objections" sounds so much more complicated than "opt-out" (a lot of words, and all), really it's pretty simple. A short, likely separate, form you read and sign when you're getting your driver's license (or whatever), in which you must make an explicit yes or no choice (no default, unlike most current systems where it's check the box for yes or do nothing for no). Done.
Also, if (as Elki suggested) the family can still object under an opt-out system, then how does this relieve them of the burden of making a decision? If they can still object, they're still stuck with the decision whether or not to allow it. And if they can't, then that opens a whole new can of worms (since he was suggesting this would only affect dying people without strong objections and no living family).
I fail to see how having each person make an explicit legally binding decision is somehow the inferior system.
Note that at least a couple people arguing for opt-out have explicitly stated as a benefit that they'd get the organs of at least some who would otherwise have objected (thus increasing the pool).
Or is it?*
* Totally not an example of how easily a system without regard for consent could be abused
Doesn't sound like a bad system. But I still don't have any problems with the one being proposed.
Yes.. yes they have.
The fun thing is, from what I've seen, in Australia (back down under again) you can do it as simply as registering online. they also have multiple types of donation distinguished as Consent and Intent. The distinction being that registering "consent" allows your wishes to be legally acted upon and recognizes your wishes alone. Intent on the otherhand states your wish to donate, but means you entrust that decision to be taken by your next of kin if such a time comes.
Interestingly, the "intent" option is actually very widely used (good percentage of the population on there) and easily the more popular option, with the vast majority of people seeming to prefer that their loved ones wishes be considered. It seems Sentiment and concern for the grieving isn't quite the niche it is assumed to be.
But this brings up the problem of encouraging people to talk about their choices with their family. Education, promotion and culture being the big thing and all that.
It doesn't, it actually makes the issue worse because it gives people even less reason to discuss the matter. If the one's who supposedly want to save a life don't discuss it now when know they have to make a choice, they're not about to when that need is taken away. Apathy strikes again..
Edit: Basically what I'm asking is why do you want to shit all over their religion?
I do, but I think it's mainly because I lend a lot more weight to religious objections than others here do. For instance, if somebody's organs were removed over their religious objections due either to error or not having family available to object or whatever reason, I'd say that harm has been done to them. Yes, even though they are dead. That's what happens when you believe in an afterlife.
Which is why not only do I think my system is superior, but why knowing that there is a superior system that minimizes this risk I have to oppose the opt-out system.
Which religion is it that forbids not donating your organs if indeed they are viable at the time of your brain death? I'd think their bible would be an interesting read.
EDIT: And also, how is this not addressed by my proposed alternative, which also minimizes trampling those whose beliefs prohibit donation?
Edit: Looking further it seems that it doesn't go against either Christian or Jewish beliefs, though there are rabbis who disagree on the time of death and some congregations who think they need their organs for the resurrection.
There's nothing to the contrary, it's just the fallacy that we have set of beliefs that are different so I need to invent a set of beliefs that may or may not be shared by my group to help defend against your counter argument.
This system hasn't existed for more than a hundred years, so, did that make the claims any less different 100 years ago? Because some religions want their dead to be completely in tact, why is that wrong? The system was put in to place to protect that belief. Yeah it's shitty, yeah people die because of it. But saying that we're shitting on the belief of a group of people that didn't exist until after said system was implemented is all sorts of logical fallacy.
Your proposal is far too logical and benign. Come on, if you're a real dictator you'll go with assumed consent for political dissidents while removing that whole "has to be dead first" requirement.
It would be interesting to see what a major media campaign combined with a mandatory DMV/tax option would do on a middle of the road state. You'd probably need to make the length of the study at least twice as long as the frequency the mandatory choice is presented (2 years for taxes, 10? years for DLs) to get meaningful results. Assuming that's the simpler option to which you're referring.
Kagera, why don't you just give in and try to out strawman everyone else?
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
I didn't realize that mainstream Christian and Jewish beliefs were the only ones that mattered.
I'm also still failing to see how a system that takes measures to respect the wishes of both groups (those that wish to donate, and those that do not) isn't superior.
EDIT: In other words, I'm failing to see how a system that records the explicit consent (or lack thereof) isn't preferable to a system of either implied consent or a system of implied lack thereof. Unless, of course, your goal is to get the organs of those who would object (as some have explicitly stated). Hell, I'd say an explicit consent system might actually be better (as far as number of organs harvested) than an implied intent system (which, since Elki keeps pointing out that the family can object under this opt-out system proposed, is what I assume is being discussed). You know, with the whole "no familial objections" part and all.
Because yours exists solely because said system existed. Without it, your beliefs have no bearing and we have a logical fallacy here. You can't say that since the system has been implemented, you don't agree with it because it ignores your beliefs that you created out of the rise of said system.
I'm just saying, they created the system to cater to a system of beliefs that they could see being ignored if they had went another route. Yours can't exist yet, because the system isn't in place.
Edit: And I don't want my fundie family members making any decisions whatsoever about my body after death.
It's superior when you believe in an afterlife, which I have no reason to do and has no place in public policy. I'm OK with the religious objections argument when there's a family and no clear preferences, because of the trauma to said family if their wishes were not respected. Otherwise, meh.
True. But because I place actual value on people's religious beliefs (no matter how out of the mainstream, provided they don't actively harm others), I see the opt-out system as incredibly flawed. See, I think harm can be done to somebody even though they're dead.
Which is why it's really awesome that there's this other possible system that has none of the flaws of an opt-out system while at the same time should (if everybody is as supportive of donation as opt-out would imply) have the exact same benefit to the organ pool.
Hence, because there is a flaw with opt-out and a better system that lacks that flaw is possible, I cannot support it.
But again, that's because due to that flaw I'd say opt-out is hardly better than opt-in, unless your only priority is saving lives over all else (since we've seen at least one story, on this page, the suggests that even under opt-in that consent isn't always respected). Or rather, if if your only priority is saving the lives of those living in first-world countries in need of organs over all else (no, I've not dropped that objection to those trying to lay claim to the moral high ground).
And this isn't like many other issues, where one might find themselves arguing against better in favor of best (even though best isn't possible, thus sacrificing better). I see no reason whatsoever that a population in favor of opt-out would somehow object to opt-in/universal-polling. Actually, it should just be called universal polling...because opt-in (or opt-out) both imply an implied default state, which this system doesn't particularly have. Because everybody's preference is explicitly recorded. Though I suppose for the .1% of the population that doesn't get polled you might have to decided whether to go with opt-in or opt-out...I think you know what my preference would be.
So, fuck your religious beliefs if you don't have a family, or if they can't be found (or if you can fudge the translation paperwork)? Yeah, sorry, I'm not supporting that policy.
EDIT: Especially when there is an alternative policy that nets us just as many of those sweet, sweet organs.
How would a system take into consideration a set of beliefs that didn't exist? It's sort of a false dilemma since a new solution would need to be implemented after the fact. This creates a circular cause and consequence since one will invariably ignore that of the other. And simply because it does this, we're going to ignore it because it's better for people? How is that right way? Opt-out is not the solution to opt-in.
Edit: Also, this is in no way at all a false dichotomy. I don't think you know what that means.
That's great. My family could give a shit about what happened to someone else when I died. Yeah, they feel bad someone died but I'm their family. They care what happens to me over them.
You can't fucking measure grief. Grief is grief. I personally think someone grieving over a car accident is a little bit more important that someone grieving over a relative who they knew was dying. Yeah, still grief, but how are you going to measure it?
EDIT: Especially since presumably the family of the person whose organs were taken also just lost somebody.
Also, I didn't realize that when arguing a policy it was impossible to argue alternative, better policy changes instead.
Put me in the "I firmly oppose this policy because I have objections to it and there is a better and equally viable option" camp.