Organ Donation Should be Compulsory (statistics, parties, education, gun)

[purehuman]

Originally Posted by Troyfan

Donation is not mandatory. A mandatory donation is an oxymoron. Like giant shrimp.

If you want to take peoples organs call it organ harvesting or organ robbing, etc.

And why wait till the person is dead? If a more worthy person needs an organ, why not take it from someone or lesser value?

We don't always "wait till the person is dead".....unfortunately...and yes, we DO take from those we feel are of "lesser value".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6cdPTkD5k

[SWFL_Native]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

The Jahi McMath case (https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62464...n-death-has-di) got me thinking about organ donation. Currently, we leave the decision regarding organ donation up to the individual or the individual's family. I believe this is unethical.

The importance of respecting the family's wishes (or the individual's) regarding a dead body with usable organs does not outweigh the importance of actually saving the lives of living humans who need those organs. This simple utilitarian argument seems indisputable, at least on utilitarian grounds.

Let's say you aren't a utilitarian, however. It seems the main argument one might make against my reasoning is that the individual or the family have some sort of "ownership" of the organs, at least in the sense that they should be able to dictate what happens to them. But I don't think this is true. First, let's start with the individual. That individual no longer exists. It doesn't seem cogent to say that a person who no longer exists owns his or her organs. A dead person doesn't own anything. I also think it's very problematic to say that the family owns the organs. We don't recognize any sort of familial ownership of organs during life, so why does this suddenly begin at death?

It seems to me that compulsory organ donation would clearly save lives, and this benefit outweighs any harm that might be caused by denying family members the right to reject such donations. I can't see why we don't currently require organ donation in all cases in which the organs are viable.

I think your feeling of entitlement to my organs or the status of my organs is unethical and offensive.

I'll leave you to lead your own life and make your own decisions as you see fit. Stay out of mine...

[Heidi60]

Originally Posted by purehuman

We don't always "wait till the person is dead".....unfortunately...and yes, we DO take from those we feel are of "lesser value".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE6cdPTkD5k

If you are ignorant, you cannot make wise decisions. Sadly, the people on the video were not told the truth but there are many predatory people all over the world and many are judged by their social value.



This above post also needs to be repeated:


I think your feeling of entitlement to my organs or the status of my organs is unethical and offensive.

I'll leave you to lead your own life and make your own decisions as you see fit. Stay out of mine...
Today 09:01 AM

[wac_432]

Originally Posted by emm74

what if you don't have a family?

What if I die and don't have a family. Same thing happens to the money for my organs as happens to the rest of my ****. That's hardly a good reason not to pay donors.

What if your family is evil enough to knock you off for a bit of money?

So should we ban selling life insurance as well? Another non-reason. If someone kills me for my organ money that's a matter for law enforcement, same as if they kill me for the contents of my wallet, or my diamond grill. How does it make any difference if my posessions are inside or outside my body?

What if you feel so destitute you are willing to sell your own organs to try to provide for your family?

People do lots of things which permanently risk or damage their health to support their family. Why is organ donation taboo? I disagree with any law that says people aren't allowed to be in control of their bodies, for good or ill.

There's a reason why organ donors aren't paid. And as far as I know, all organ procurement networks are not for profit, meaning that yes, there is a payment involved to cover the expenses, but no one is buying stock and putting money in their pocket from selling dead people's body parts

Doctors are putting money in their pocket from installing dead people's body parts, and you're naive if you think that "nonprofit" means nobody is making money from legal organ trade. As others have said, the donors are the only ones getting screwed. They're the true altruists, and the medical system is taking advantage of them.

There are reasons why organ donors aren't paid, but none of them are good reasons. The REAL reason organ donors don't get paid is because it would mean less money in the pot for rich hospitals, doctors, and organ procurement agencies. Why pay someone if they're willing to do it for free?

Really, someone should start a movement for everyone to refuse to be a donor until we're allowed to sell our organs.

And eff no, giving your organs away shouldn't be compulsory!

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

I was out of town and unable to respond. I'll try to hit some of the most interesting responses:

Originally Posted by newtovenice

You cannot harvest organs from a dead body.

Yes, you can, assuming you think brain dead people are dead. If not, you are only making a semantic disagreement. Most organ donors are brain dead.

Originally Posted by Fat Freddy

I will donate my organs when the doctors and the hospital donate their services.

I am not donating anything that produces profit for others unless I get a piece of the action.

So let's imagine you know you are about to die, but your liver could be used to save the life of a person who wouldn't otherwise live. The only catch is that the doctor who does the procedure will actually make money for doing the surgery. You would honestly decline to donate your liver and save a life simply because the doctor would make money and you, the person who will be dead in about thirty minutes, will not? How petty of you.

Originally Posted by freemkt

The uninsured would be in a position of being required to donate their organs upon death, but not (financially) able to obtain an organ if they needed one.

That bothers me a lot.

I agree that the fact that financial standing affects healthcare quality is a problem. But I don't see how that implies we should have less organ donation. The problem you are describing isn't made worse by the plan I am proposing. Since my plan here significantly improves one problem (people dying because they don't have organs) and doesn't make the problem you describe worse, I can't see the downside.

Originally Posted by phetaroi

You keep saying that we don't get your point.
We get it.
Most of us don't agree.

No, I don't keep saying that you don't get my point. I said that specifically to Nirvana regarding my comments about religious belief, which he or she clearly did not understand.

Originally Posted by purehuman

Seems to me the OP regards any respect shown towards a deceased person (or body ) as totally unnecessary.
If that's the case OP, why even make out wills.....isn't a will supposed to be a LEGAL document?
Do you think that a will is of no good as the deceased decisions no longer matter anyways???

Will have the purpose of distributing resources. They aren't an indication that the dead body has rights.

Originally Posted by purehuman

OP, do you believe a person has the right to know how their body will be treated after death???

No. Where on earth would such a right come from?

Originally Posted by Nov3

In order for organ donation to meet its goal would be to harvest it very soon after being verified deceased. Never mind that the person's organs could well be contaminated with cancer cells,blood borne pathogens....let's just perpetuate the human problem of slapping an organ into a live being and cross our fingers .

There are plenty of cases where "slapping an organ into a live being and crossing our fingers" is better than the alternative of certain death. I'm not advocating using organs with unknown history in all cases. But there are plenty of cases where some chance is better than zero chance, and I don't see how that is a human "problem."

Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah

Another thing is that forcing donation could probably be argued as against the First Amendment under Freedom of Speech, just as it might be argued that forcing one to vote is against the First Amendment.

I am making an argument about how our society SHOULD treat organs, not what is currently legally permissible. Your response is like saying "Marijuana is currently illegal" to a person who is saying people should be allowed to smoke marijuana.

Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah

We have in this thread the constant argument that once dead, rights do not matter. If a person says when they are alive, however, "I declare that my body will not be defiled once I am dead,", is that not Freedom of Speech, is that not exercising it?

You are misunderstanding freedom of speech. If the government isn't stopping you from saying "I declare that my body will not be defiled once I am dead," then the government hasn't restricted your speech. Freedom of speech does not imply that the directives in your speech are carried out.

Originally Posted by emm74

Not that I agree with the OP anyway, but certainly it would only be reasonable to require donation if we had true universally accessible healthcare regardless of any ability to pay premiums.

I don't understand the marriage of these two things. It's like saying we shouldn't have police departments until being rich doesn't give you the privilege of living in a safe neighborhood. We can fix one problem without fixing the other in the same solution.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Compulsory organ donation violates an individual's 1st Amendment right regarding religion, their 1st Amendment right regarding freedom of association and freedom from association, their 4th Amendment right to privacy, their 4th Amendment right to search and seizure, their 5th Amendment right to due process regarding their personal property, and also their 6th Amendment right regarding matters of controversy that are greater than $20 in value.

I am making an argument about how our society SHOULD be. Citing legal obstacles to that is irrelevant. I am not claiming that my suggestion is currently legal.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Did it ever occur to you that Nature intended for those persons to die as a matter of the process of Natural Selection?

1. Nature doesn't have intentions.

2. Natural selection is not a guide for ethics. Natural selection is also driven by rape, the killing of sexual competitors, the eating of offspring, mass deaths of youths to find the most fit and completely absent fathers. Are you sure you want to point to natural selection for how we should behave?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Did you ever bother to read the studies related to medical treatment related to organ donors?


When doctors know a person is an organ donor, doctors tend not to perform extraordinary attempts to save someone's life, and often don't even engage in normal attempts to save someone's life. Doctors quickly give up, instead of giving it that "old college try," because time is critical when harvesting organs and tissue.

I have not. Could you cite some for me?

Originally Posted by Mircea

Your rights extend beyond death. I would cite the relevant case-law, but it would take several weeks and a few hundred posts to cover it.

You don't need to go that in-depth, but could you cite some case law that shows a person actually possesses legal rights after that person is dead?

It's irrelevant to our discussion of course, because I'm not making the argument that my suggestion is legal currently. But it seems strange to me to say "Smith has rights" when Smith no longer exists. How can a thing that doesn't exist have rights?

Originally Posted by ddm2k

Even if I was dying, or a loved one was dying, I would not feel I had the right to the organs in someone else's body. I wasn't raised to feel entitled to what is not mine.

Ah, so if you somehow survived a plane crash deep in a privately-owned forest and were about to die of thirst after waiting things out for a couple days, you wouldn't take a drink from that clear stream because the water doesn't belong to you?

I doubt it. I think you would, and I think you would take the organ when your life actually depended on it.

Originally Posted by ddm2k

OP your beliefs are of concern to me because you have a looter's mentality. Even more disturbing that it applies to human organs.

Your beliefs are a concern to me because you are drastically undervaluing the benefit of saving the lives of actual, living human beings out of concern for who the organs of a dead person belong to.

Originally Posted by coschristi

It should not be compulsory because:

-It would create a society where people are more valuable dead than alive.

How is that true when the entire purpose of getting the organ is to keep a person alive? Nothing in my suggestion implies that living people are less valuable than dead people. Quite the opposite. It is you who is assigning more value to the dead "person."

Originally Posted by coschristi

-A society where those with the potential to reproduce those highly prized blood & tissue types are deemed worthy to live ... but only if you agree to use your childbearing years to your fullest potential.

-Meaning this would primarily impact women or worse; girls; turning us into Petri dishes to satisfy supply/demand.

-Well; at least until middle-age/menopause. I guess then we can surrender our organs in deference to the men that have another 20-30 years of viable tissue reproduction potential.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

This board is very good at slippery slopes for some reason.

Originally Posted by coschristi

Less compulsion. More innovation.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by purplesky

I work in a hospital and there are so many steps for a brain dead donor to go through that it doesn't always result in an organ donation.

Of course not. But if the pool of potential donors became five times larger, I can only assume that the number of actual transplants and lives saved would increase.

Originally Posted by KCZ

At a time when millions in the US and billions around the world lack basic medical care, and the cost of care in the US alone is astronomical and millions have no insurance, and the world is facing overpopulation and dwindling resources, advocating that people be forced to give up their organs so they can be used in a massively expensive health-care endeavor seems very short-sighted. The money for that one transplant of a liver from an unwilling donor could supply vaccines, PAP smears, and blood pressures check to thousands, or cleft palate repairs to dozens.

What a big fat red herring. First, I don't see how this would be "massively expensive." There would be more potential organs, but many of those potential donors wouldn't meet the various suitability criteria. It isn't as though every dying person would then result in a transplant surgery. Second, do you honestly believe the cost of a transplant surgery is not worth it? I think that's a tough position to defend. If you believe that, then you should be opposed to all organ donation of all stripes, including willing donations. Third, there is no way that my proposal is going to prevent people from getting vaccines or pap smears or blood pressure checks. For crying out loud.

Originally Posted by Marc Paolella

This argument can be moot. Undifferentiated fetal tissue from abortions could be used to generate all the organs we need. One day, organ donation will be a quaint idea indeed.

Yes, one day it will be. And one day in vitro meat will be the only meat people eat. But until then, I'm a vegetarian, and I think others should be as well.

Originally Posted by arwenmark

OP: Tell me, have you ever been dead? do you know what happens after death? No you don't and your ideas on the subject are no more valid than anyone else's.

That isn't true. Just because something is a matter of opinion doesn't mean that some opinions aren't more well-reasoned than others.

1. We know that the "person" depends on the physical structure of the human body. Classic cases like Phineas Gage tell us this.

2. The body decays to the point of being organic soil matter after being buried.

3. This decaying eventually wipes out any kind of physical structure that our "person" depends on.

Look, I'm not trying to convince you that there is no afterlife here. But it certainly can't depend on the physical body. Maybe your "spirit" or whatever goes to heaven. But "you" can't still be your body.

Originally Posted by Mircea

It's not selfish.

It violates the 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments.

As I said, this isn't a legal argument. I'm not saying I think this is legal or illegal. I am saying I think this is what the law should be.

Originally Posted by Mircea

Even after a person dies, they still have rights, which are often enforced through Wills and Codicils. If dead people had no rights, then Wills and Codicils would be unenforceable. If the dead had no rights, then it would not be possible to file a wrongful death claim.

The bold is incorrect. Our legal system recognizes things like wills as binding contracts. Their enforceability has nothing to do with the dead person having rights.

The question of rights is a complex philosophical one, but dead bodies are not people. They are lumps of organic matter. They aren't people anymore. To say that this lump of organic matter has rights when it has no experiences, can't experience pleasure or pain and will never again do those things makes no sense. Dead bodies are no more morally significant than a rock in your front yard. Bodies don't have rights. People do.

Originally Posted by Steve McDonald

The OP fails to recognize that if everyone's organs were up for grabs after their deaths, that unscrupulous people might make arrangements for deaths to occur prematurely. Potential victims who had no relatives, would be especially susceptible to having their lives and organs pirated. It's inevitable that this would begin to happen, if mandatory organ donation were put into effect. Even if just a few cases of this occurred, the entire medical profession would have its trustworthiness brought into question. Medical professionals should oppose mandatory organ donation, for this reason.

If someone is willing to commit murder, they could already murder someone and sell their organs on the black market.

There is already an organization that handles the assignment of organs (UNOS). It isn't as though you can say "Hey, here's a dead guy. Can I get his liver transplanted into me?"

What you are suggesting is something someone could already do if they were willing to commit murder, and it wouldn't be any more legal under my idea.

Originally Posted by ClaraC

Declaring a person's organs community property is a hell of a slippery slope.

It's not a stretch to say since we are the owners of your organs upon death, you can be charged with a crime for harming those organs while alive.

So drinking, eating junk food, using pesticides in your home, even choosing not to eat organic food will damage what is public property, your organs.

Nope and nope. This thread feels like "A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift. A farce.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I think this is the fourth time in this thread that I've had to point out that SLIPPERY SLOPES ARE LOGICAL FALLACIES.

Originally Posted by Brave New World

The debate about compulsory organ donation is the wrong debate to be having.

Can't we have more than one debate?

Originally Posted by kayanne

OP, no, the end does not justify the means.

Several times you've said the person is dead anyway, so they have no "rights." In your scenario, if a person's religion (or even personal preference) forbade organ donation, that person would spend his whole live knowing that his wishes would be violated when he died.

There are many ways that more lives could be saved IF saving lives were the ultimate goal above everything else. But most of us value freedom and respect for individual choices above mere living.

We *could* force the donation of one kidney or a partial liver from a living donor (hey what's the harm?), or force women to conceive and carry babies for their bone marrow or other tissues, or require blood and bone marrow donations from everyone, and on and on. Yes, those examples aren't using dead people, as in your scenario, but if it saves more lives, why stop at using dead people?

Again, because of freedom and individual choice. Freedom and respect for beliefs/convictions should not end at death.

1. The ends often justify the means. Sometimes they don't. In this particular case, it seems the benefit of saving a life outweighs the harm of Joe Smith rotting to dirt without his liver intact.

2. Regarding the idea of taking organs from living donors: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Seriously, how is it possible that a board that exists specifically for debating features so many logical fallacies? Do you people seriously not see the hard line distinction between taking the organs of a living person and taking them from a dead person? This isn't a shade of gray.

3. What sort of beliefs do you think you will have when you are dead?

Originally Posted by Troyfan

And why wait till the person is dead? If a more worthy person needs an organ, why not take it from someone or lesser value?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

I am blown away that this many people don't see distinction between taking an organ from a dead body and taking one from a living person. I didn't expect my idea to be popular, but I also didn't expect so many people to think this idea was anything close to murder.

Originally Posted by SWFL_Native

I think your feeling of entitlement to my organs or the status of my organs is unethical and offensive.

I'll leave you to lead your own life and make your own decisions as you see fit. Stay out of mine...

I'm not sure why you are using personal pronouns here. I am not suggesting that I get to take your organs. I am suggesting that we live in a world where neither of us gets a guarantee of what will happen to our bodies after death in exchange for a guarantee that we can have functioning organs that could save our lives if we need them.

And they won't be YOUR organs anymore. You won't exist.

[COJeff]

OP dont you have better things in life to worry about?

[Wittgenstein's Ghost]

Originally Posted by COJeff

OP dont you have better things in life to worry about?

Yes. Which is why it is good that I can "worry" about more than one thing.

Roughly 7,300 people die per year waiting for organs. To put that into perspective, there are about 17,000 murders per year in the US. We all agree that murder is a really big deal, and a lot of time and attention are given to discussing how we can prevent things like gun deaths.

I think you and other people here are not appreciating the scope of the problem. This is not a trivial issue.

[JaxRhapsody]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

The law and rights are not the same thing. Stealing a body is illegal, but that doesn't mean the body has rights.

Dead human bodies are just decaying organic matter, like everything else we walk on nearly every day. In order to have rights, it must be possible for you to have experiences. Otherwise, rocks and dirt and trees have "rights."

People have rights. Bodies do not.

Then try and have sex with one...

[JaxRhapsody]

Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost

Wills exist to settle disputes among your survivors about your property. It isn't inconsistent to say that you can't stipulate what happens to your organs. That is simply an exception, not an inconsistency.

I am confused why no one here seems to be seriously considering the importance of saving the lives of living people who might otherwise die if they don't get a transplant. Has anyone here had a family member need a transplant? Do you all honestly believe these "I want to specify what happens to my organs when I'm dead" concerns outweigh the concern of saving lives?



As I said to another poster, I am not making an argument about what the laws currently allow. I am making an argument about what the laws should be.

I think we all know the importance of saving lives. For some, the interest in it doesn't go that far. Really in the grand scheme of things, it isn't all that important and I believe saving civilization is more important than a few individuals. We as people need to step away from curing all diseases and trying to make people near immortal.

[JaxRhapsody]

Not an organ doner, never will be. No I don't care about saving lives, there's too many lives existing. Save civilization by allowing it to exist on this planet, not on mars or some space station floating around. Organ donating should not be mandatory, it shouldn't be something to opt out of, it is fine jutlst the way it is. Honestly people like you who are always suggesting giving the government with your "great ideas," need to stay silent. They have more power than they should, don't you like this "free" country you live in, why do you want some Korea/USSR socialist, totalitarian dictatorship wtf ever?


There's too many damn people, overpopulation is the main answer to many of the USAs problems; jobs, housing, homelessness, room, traffic, money, opertunity and people like you want to save everybody, cure all diseases, make everybody near immortal. Nobody needs to see 95 years old, we are so high on the food chain that the only things nature can throw at us to keep.our population in check is medicated severely. Let the people die so others can live. I'm not giving my organs to another waste of space. I'm not helping anybody beat the clock and shirk out on meeting the reaper. And to whomever claiming if you don't donate, you don't get one if you need it; well life doesn't just work that way. If it happened to me, in that scenario; lemme die, then, life has hardly given me reasons it's worth living.


Matter of fact; if somebody wants my organs so bad, they can buy them from me. If you think you, your family or friends might need my organ after I've died, pay me what you think it's worth, keep the invoice, when I die, present invoice to my family, to which then they'll be paid the sales tax, amd my organ(s) are yours for the taking. Since I'm not a person with liberties after death, we'll deal with it, while I'm alive and I too can benefit from it. Act fast. Black men typically die(naturally) between 48-63 years old, and I'm 30. Things like livers and hearts are high comodity, eight grand sounds fair to me...probably a steal...