Can we just make organ donation in the US opt-out already?

Thanks.

 

No one is getting my organs, nobody

 

No

 

Which is why it's called 'opt-out' as opposed to 'mandatory organ donation.'

 

Is it really a big deal to say that you want to be one, instead of presuming that everyone wants to be an organ donor?

 

What Darth McClain said.

 

Seeing as the number of people who say that they're willing to be organ donors is significantly higher than the number of people who have actually registered to be one, I'd say yes.

 

If they're willing then why not do it? It's not like they don't ask you at the DMV. I think some of those people are liars.

 

Except that they don't in every state?

Okay?

 

I'm sure that's Communist. Socialization of my organs? Over my dead bo-- wait.

 

Then in those states it would be in the best interest of someone pro-organ donation to rally the troops so it is asked.

I'm in a bad mood just ignore that I guess.

 

Or they could make organ donation opt-out?

 

But if they make it opt out, then they might harvest my organs because I was too lazy to check a no box, and then my body will be defiled! And then the dread lord Shub-Niggurath (Ever Their praises, and abundance to the Black Goat of the Woods. Iä! Iä!) will be unable to harvest my soul on the day of Her dread return! Oh, and something about socialism!

 

Fine PicardGroupie, you can have my testicles when I die.

 

I take grim satisfaction in knowing that when I die, I shall be taking at least five people with me.

 

I'm not opposed to the concept, Carmen, but I could see the potential drawback as "political and reputational risk/fallout" from the following scenarios (granted, worst case), mostly involving children:

1) An infant is born to a family of a religion which prevents it; is sick in the hospital, never to be brought home, and dies in NICU after a period of time. Theoretically, were the parents not to have signed the opt-out (probably not given at birth; possibly not offered by the hospital even as the infant nears death) the hostpial would be within rights to take organs for surviving infants on the transplant list.

ADD'L REPREHENSIBLE THINGS FROM THIS: the hospital intentionally doesn't proffer said documents because they have a child for their hospital on said waiting list.

2) A child of indeterminate age, again from a similar religious background, is orphaned and made into a ward of the state or placed into foster care due to Child Services where parents had already signed a document. The child dies while in said care and the new custodians determine -- without documentation -- they want the offering of organs.

I'm sure Dani could comment on either/or of those scenarios (certainly the latter probably has very simple legalistic "fixes") but it doesn't affect the newscycles that would occur from those scenarios, that I am aware of. As well, it certainly is much better for the news cycles to have people like Chris Henry than to make that a common thing. As well, that scenario wouldn't be allowed to take place (in theory) as it was his mother's decision for organ donation which -- were it opt-out and he had decided such since he had apparently not opted-in - would not have been legally permissible in that case.

 

It's really a good idea in that it would clearly increase the number of willing donors and save a lot of lives but it'll never happen.

Would love to see how the Tea Party would spin this...

OBAMA WANTS TO RIP OPEN YOUR CHEST AND TAKE YOUR HEART WHEN YOU GO TO THE DOCTOR FOR A HEADACHE!!!

 

Couldn't that happen even if it wasn't opt out? If the decision is in the hands of the current custodians of the child, wouldn't they be able to make that decision even in an opt-in system?

 

Assuming the child is in the foster care of someone of a different religion than the dead parents, you do see the inherent crisis that would be sparked on news programs everywhere, yes?

The ADL and probably AIPAC at least would be picketing...

With opt-in, there's actually little anyone can say since there's no formal documentation until issues a post-18 YO state ID and it is entirely up to the current custodians, AFAIK.

 

I say, why let people opt out?

 

...and why wait until they're dead?

 

If orphaned child was old enough to have their own expressed religious beliefs you would hope prospective parents would respect those.

Otherwise I'm afraid dead people don't have rights over how their children are raised.

Anyways...two hypothetical scenarios, with an incredibly low probability of occurring < many lives saved. I find this akin to the 'seatbelts shouldn't be compulsory because they make it more difficult to get out of a car that falls into water' argument.

 

I'm merely trying to point out the issues with the plan from a popular opinion point of view -- which is what drives all of politics.

Also, the seatbelt argument is about as faulty in this case as you can get. The smoking one is closer (possibly closest, I think).

Just to play Devil's Advocate as well, if a law like this were to be passed there would theoretically be nothing stopping the government from then positing a law that abortion is opt-in, rather than opt-out like it is now. It's essentially telling everyone in the country "this is what you have to do with your body unless you specifically state you don't wish to. In effect it's still a choice, but a far more onerous one -- especially for younger women -- than it is now.

 

I would think it would be fairly easy to draw a distinction between the positive effects of organ donation and the neutral/negative effects of abortion.

 

Theoretically it is a good idea. However, my understanding is that even if you have registered as an organ donor, the hospital will usually ask your family before donating your organs anyway. I'm not sure that would change.


-sj loves kevin spacey