Should Organ Donation be Mandatory?

[The Kernel]

The question is pretty self-explanatory, should organ donation be mandatory after a person's death? Statistics show that only about 50% of American families agree to donate the organs of their loved ones when asked, an appalling figure considering that they could be used to directly save the lives of others.

Forgoing the nastiness involved in implementing this, should organ donations become mandatory? Is their any moral reason not to mandate such a policy?

Also, I don't want to hear any red herrings about doctors pushing people to pull the plug on loved ones for organs or mandating pulling the plug on vegetative patients to harvest their organs as neither of them applies to what I am talking about.

[The Kernel]

EDIT: Crap, can a mod add a simple yes/no poll to this? Somehow mine got borked.

[Sea Skimmer]

No I feel that it should not be mandatory; I would however strongly support changing the way the system works from people having to 'opt in' to people having to 'opt out' of the donation system. That change alone would probably bring millions more organs to the table.

[Admiral Valdemar]

What I've always proposed has been what Skimmer suggested. It's not so much a case of people on the whole actively wanting to keep their organs from others, whatever their reasons. It's that many never bother to sign-up and consider it too much hassle, don't understand it or are simply too lazy. The bureacratic crap you have to go through to get transplants sorted out is bad enough without having to confirm if a person is on the register or not and respect their beliefs.

Course, as nothing in life is so clear cut, I'd mention that the possibility of engineered organs tailor made to the recipient is on the horizon which could render this moral quandary moot. We have artificial blood which does reasonable job for now, but the Holy Grail is not relying on isografts or xenografts and instead having everything made to order. Assuming no more cock-ups with stem cell research thanks to that prick in South Korea, we may have this ability someday soon, or even full regeneration of any organ in vivo.

[Solauren]

Make being a registered organ donnar lower your income tax rate by 1 bracket.

You'll have more organs then you need

[Molyneux]

Organ donation should be an opt-out affair. Simple.

[Plekhanov]

mandatory donation would lead to all kinds of unpleasantness like people being afraid to call doctors or go to hospital when they were sick for fear of being cut up after their death. An opt out system which is brought in under huge publicity and which is easy to opt out of would probably be the best way to boost the availability of organs with a minimum of negative consequences.

[Junghalli]

No I feel that it should not be mandatory; I would however strongly support changing the way the system works from people having to 'opt in' to people having to 'opt out' of the donation system. That change alone would probably bring millions more organs to the table.

I agree. I don't think it should be mandatory, but it seems kind of messed up to me personally that the default is they get to rot with the rest of your carcass when they could be used to save lives.

Make being a registered organ donnar lower your income tax rate by 1 bracket.

Even better idea.

[LongVin]

Nope. Your Organs are for all intents and purposes your property. When you die as long as you have a will you are allowed to do with as you please with your money, property and posessions.

[The Kernel]

Nope. Your Organs are for all intents and purposes your property. When you die as long as you have a will you are allowed to do with as you please with your money, property and posessions.

I posted this in the other thread:

But they aren't your property, you are not allowed to sell or transfer your organs onto anyone except for the organ donation program.

Not to mention that there is a compelling societal need that far outweighs the needs of the individual. The government routinely confiscates property from people for something as trivial as a highway and they can't take away something with no value to anyone but the organ donation program?

[Zero]

Make being a registered organ donnar lower your income tax rate by 1 bracket.

You'll have more organs then you need

You'll have more organs than you need, but I wonder how much the deficit would raise...

[The Kernel]

No I feel that it should not be mandatory; I would however strongly support changing the way the system works from people having to 'opt in' to people having to 'opt out' of the donation system. That change alone would probably bring millions more organs to the table.

I agree. I don't think it should be mandatory, but it seems kind of messed up to me personally that the default is they get to rot with the rest of your carcass when they could be used to save lives.

Make being a registered organ donnar lower your income tax rate by 1 bracket.

Even better idea.

Providing an opt-out is fine, but it shouldn't be as easy as, say, signing up for the Do Not Call list. Make it require a mandtory consultation with a doctor about the benefits of the organ donation program, this would ensure all but the troublemaking fundies would simply deal with it.

[Plekhanov]

Make being a registered organ donnar lower your income tax rate by 1 bracket.

You'll have more organs then you need

You'll have more organs than you need, but I wonder how much the deficit would raise...

In that case then raise the income tax bracket for all those who don't register.

[LongVin]

Nope. Your Organs are for all intents and purposes your property. When you die as long as you have a will you are allowed to do with as you please with your money, property and posessions.

I posted this in the other thread:

But they aren't your property, you are not allowed to sell or transfer your organs onto anyone except for the organ donation program.

Not to mention that there is a compelling societal need that far outweighs the needs of the individual. The government routinely confiscates property from people for something as trivial as a highway and they can't take away something with no value to anyone but the organ donation program?

ok switching to this thread for everything.

Its part of your person thus making it yours. When you die your body basically becomes the property of your family to bury to cremate according to there wishes(or the wishes of a will)

Also isn't the reason you can't sell organs is because they want to push the donor system and have a fair distribution system? I'm sure if they allowed people to sell there organs there would be more people willing to give em up.

With Emiment Domain the person losing there property is compensated for the property they loss for the construction of the said highway. And even then there are usually tons of legal battles on whether the highway/park/sports center really needs to go there.

[Plekhanov]

Also how about making it so anybody who opts out of the system can’t receive donated organs?

[The Kernel]

ok switching to this thread for everything.

Its part of your person thus making it yours. When you die your body basically becomes the property of your family to bury to cremate according to there wishes(or the wishes of a will)

So? The fact remains that your body parts have zero monetary value. Even if you qualify them as property (which is questionable given the restrictions surrounding remains) the Government does have the right to seize them.

Also isn't the reason you can't sell organs is because they want to push the donor system and have a fair distribution system? I'm sure if they allowed people to sell there organs there would be more people willing to give em up.

You are not allowed to sell them because it would create a grey market for medicine, something that is not allowed at any level. Medicine is regulated systemwide from pills to organs.

With Emiment Domain the person losing there property is compensated for the property they loss for the construction of the said highway. And even then there are usually tons of legal battles on whether the highway/park/sports center really needs to go there.

'
Since the "property" in this case has zero monetary value, there is nothing to compensate. Furthermore, the legal battles only occur because each situation varies whereas a single policy for organs could reasonably be implemented.

[LongVin]

So? The fact remains that your body parts have zero monetary value. Even if you qualify them as property (which is questionable given the restrictions surrounding remains) the Government does have the right to seize them.

The government is only allowed to seize select things with select reasons with fair compensation. Just because something has no value doesn't mean its ok for someone to take away its still theft.

Since the "property" in this case has zero monetary value, there is nothing to compensate. Furthermore, the legal battles only occur because each situation varies whereas a single policy for organs could reasonably be implemented.

I would disagree on them having no monetary value. You could probably argue that since the doctors make money on the organ transplant there is a monetary value. Also you could say that since there are people willing to pay for said organs there is a value

But I would say more importantly you can place monetary value on things that commonly have no value. Such as awarding money for emotional distress. There really is no monetary value for emotions but courts still award money for emotional distress in supeonas.

[Junghalli]

Also how about making it so anybody who opts out of the system can’t receive donated organs?

I don't think there'd be a real need for such a severe policy. Make organ donation an opt-out policy, with some minimal hassle involved in opting out, and I suspect there will be little or no shortage of donors. Fact is the average man won't be bothered if he doesn't have to be; only people who feel strongly about the issue will go to the trouble of making sure they aren't put on donor lists.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Also how about making it so anybody who opts out of the system can’t receive donated organs?

I don't think there'd be a real need for such a severe policy. Make organ donation an opt-out policy, with some minimal hassle involved in opting out, and I suspect there will be little or no shortage of donors. Fact is the average man won't be bothered if he doesn't have to be; only people who feel strongly about the issue will go to the trouble of making sure they aren't put on donor lists.

Many people who actively do not want to donate organs (unlike me who lost the $#%# sticker saying I wanted to be one) do it for strongly personal or even religious reasons. Punishing someone for their beliefs is rather cruel.

[TheBlackCat]

Course, as nothing in life is so clear cut, I'd mention that the possibility of engineered organs tailor made to the recipient is on the horizon which could render this moral quandary moot. We have artificial blood which does reasonable job for now, but the Holy Grail is not relying on isografts or xenografts and instead having everything made to order. Assuming no more cock-ups with stem cell research thanks to that prick in South Korea, we may have this ability someday soon, or even full regeneration of any organ in vivo.

Don't throw away your organ donor card just yet. Artificial organs are still quite a ways off, stem cells or not. Heck, we can't regrow skin (which ha inherent but limited self-repair capcity) or cartilage (which has a relatively simple structure), not to mention something like a heart, kidney or retina. Blood is not a very good example because it is a liquid, trying to grow something with a physical structure is much, much more difficult. Cells are very picky about what they will do, if you don't give them exactly what they are looking for they will at best do something completely wrong and at worst kill themselves.

I would focus on improving the organ donor system, we can abandon them if and when we develop the ability to regrow organs. That is not to say regrowing organs is impossible or a waste of money, nothing could be further from the truth, it will just take time.

As for forced organ donations, I would agree with everyone else that an opt-out system would be preferable. Just tell people when they get their driver's license or other legal documents from the government that they are organ donors and tell them that if they want to opt out here is the paperwork. That way nobody is surprised.

[Plekhanov]

Also how about making it so anybody who opts out of the system can’t receive donated organs?

I don't think there'd be a real need for such a severe policy. Make organ donation an opt-out policy, with some minimal hassle involved in opting out, and I suspect there will be little or no shortage of donors. Fact is the average man won't be bothered if he doesn't have to be; only people who feel strongly about the issue will go to the trouble of making sure they aren't put on donor lists.

Many people who actively do not want to donate organs (unlike me who lost the $#%# sticker saying I wanted to be one) do it for strongly personal or even religious reasons. Punishing someone for their beliefs is rather cruel.

If people actively opt out of the donation system at the giving end isn't it only fair that they should also be opted out of the recieving end aswell? Why should they be able to take from the system whilst actively taking steps to avoid ever giving to it?

[Durandal]

Many people who actively do not want to donate organs (unlike me who lost the $#%# sticker saying I wanted to be one) do it for strongly personal or even religious reasons. Punishing someone for their beliefs is rather cruel.

So is punishing the rest of society for your personal or religious beliefs. I see no problem with denying organ transplants from the Organ Donation Program to people who refuse to donate their organs when they die. Let their "personal or even religious reasons" find them a private donor in their time of need.

Of course, there'd be no real way to implement such a policy. A person in need of an organ could always sign a form saying he'll be an organ donor, get the organ and then rescind his participation in the program. But if there was a way to bind him to it, I'd be all for it.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

So? The fact remains that your body parts have zero monetary value. Even if you qualify them as property (which is questionable given the restrictions surrounding remains) the Government does have the right to seize them.

By that standard, the government has the right to throw you in jail for nebulous mutterings concerning national security. Sure, it'd be a huge blow on rights, but if one's right to bodily sanctity is easily violable...

You are not allowed to sell them because it would create a grey market for medicine, something that is not allowed at any level. Medicine is regulated systemwide from pills to organs.

If you legalize the sales, why would they be "grey"? There might be a gray or black market, but I doubt there really isn't a black market for drugs somewhere.

Since the "property" in this case has zero monetary value, there is nothing to compensate. Furthermore, the legal battles only occur because each situation varies whereas a single policy for organs could reasonably be implemented.

Since your argument is basically on utilitarian grounds (benefit to more) rather than deontological principles (sanctity of property or body), how would you like it if the government puts $10000 in your pocket as "compensation" then rips off one of your eyes, one of your kidneys, half your liver, one of your ears, one of anything else you have a double of and half of anything that you only "need" half of.

You are still more or less functional and $10000 richer. The half-liver and kidney went to two people, your eye went to make one totally blind guy see again, and so on. Mathematically it is valid utilitarian math.

[Kwizard]

I don't know why people seem to think they'll need their organs after death. That being said, making donation mandatory would be far too messy in the political landscape - incentives to give could be a lot more effective.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Many people who actively do not want to donate organs (unlike me who lost the $#%# sticker saying I wanted to be one) do it for strongly personal or even religious reasons. Punishing someone for their beliefs is rather cruel.

So is punishing the rest of society for your personal or religious beliefs. I see no problem with denying organ transplants from the Organ Donation Program to people who refuse to donate their organs when they die. Let their "personal or even religious reasons" find them a private donor in their time of need.

Of course, there'd be no real way to implement such a policy. A person in need of an organ could always sign a form saying he'll be an organ donor, get the organ and then rescind his participation in the program. But if there was a way to bind him to it, I'd be all for it.

The availability of organs for transplant in America is a public good, and can't be selectively excluded, or at least it shouldn't.