Serious Thread: Organ Donation

I imagine there are lots and lots of things done to people after they are dead by default unless someone specifically says "no I do not want that done to me." I don't know, but I assume there is a way you could pre-death opt out of having your skull sawed off and your torso sliced open if cause of death is undetermined. For the people who are against opt-outs for organ donation, should an argument be made to make autopsies only allowable as opt-in? How about all those other things that are done to dead people as a matter of routine?

Opt out just makes sense logically. You have three groups of people:

1) people who made the conscious decision that they want to donate their organs and would be willing to make that known.
2) oblivious people
3) people who made the conscious decision that they do not want to donate their organs and would be willing to make that known.

Opting-in encompasses set 1 only. Opting-out encompasses set 1 and 2. Can't really argue the math that opting out results in more organ donation.

The whole thing about there being a stigma attached to the opt-out scenario - as it has been pointed out, who the heck is going to know you opted out other than the people who would have known that anyway? If someone feels strongly enough about it to opt-out, it seems doubtful that they would even feel stigmatized. And even if they do feel that way - are we really honestly talking about defending against the possibility of someone's cheeks feeling a little bit red when they check that opt-out box? Is that really what we are giving importance to in this life-death scenario?

 

Nope, you are dead, your individual liberties died with you. There is the liberties of the family to consider, but as has been pointed out - even when people opt in, their families have the choice to opt out. So for those people who have been picking their nose and didn't check the box to opt out, their families could still say absolutely not.

 

Why, because people who are ignorant might have not wanted it done if they had known? As I said, people are ignorant about a lot of things done to them after death - do we need to create opt-in scenarios for those things too? And most of them are ignorant because they don't care. They will be dead. People that do care about what happens after their death will educate themselves about it.

When you think about it, in lots of things are done to people by default unless they specifically opt out beforehand. That's why you have stuff like living wills.

 

I think people who are so concerned about their bodies after they die really have no handle on what the word "dead" means. Necros can use me as fuckmeat for all I care.

 

Dude, if I don't have my organs in heaven then I won't be able to live in heaven forever.

What do you think happens when you die in heaven?

 

I feel like presumed consent opens a slippery slope where people could be 'helped along' with dying. I'm a big believer in making one's own decisions for one's body and how it's used.

Yes. Absolutely.

Someone else has to die so that alcoholic can have that liver.
Bad choices net bad results - including death, sometimes.

 

So I was listening to an old Nerdist podcast today featuring Adam Corolla. He was talking about a radio DJ he used to work with who had a penile enlargement in which fat is injected into the penis and extra tissue is added.

Apparently, when Adam asked where the tissue came from, the reply was 'cadavers'. More specifically, the cadavers of organ donors.

Not sure if that is creepy or awesome. Even when you're dead, you can sill be upping the tally.

 

I think the status quo is preferably than presumed consent for organ donation. It may not be better for society as a whole, but as a free society it's seems to me that the best way is to have an opt in system. For me, my body is the last final bit of complete autonomy I have. I get to make all decisions for it, and quite frankly I don't want anyone making presumptions about what should be done with it now or after I'm gone. That may be selfish or unenlightened, but there's a sense of security that comes with it.

 

Alcoholism and other addictions are not choices. They are chronic disease states. Organ failure as a result of disease mismanagement is certainly not unique to alcoholism, so why should there be separate or additional requirements for transplant consideration? It seems to me that a period of sobriety would have more to do with reducing surgical complications, since sobriety alone is a pretty shitty indication of long-term recovery.

And while it would be nice to think my organs would be vetted to the most suitable recipient, it's not like they're getting the greatest replacement(s). And I'll be dead. Good for them if they can get my heart to pump enough blood to run a mile without passing out. Awesome if they give my kidneys a break from pharmaceuticals. And if they drink my liver to death, well, they just beat me to it.

 

I have zero - none. not one ounce. of sympathy for an alcoholic. Particularly not one who continually relapses. I'm fully aware of the struggle. I've seen it. I know it exists. I know exactly what an alcoholic looks, feels, sounds, and is like.

And I still would rather see that organ go to someone who's going to live a life that isn't self destructing.

 

I agree with you Shimmered, but only out of practicality, not lack of sympathy. There are waiting lists for organs for a reason. It makes no sense to me to give a liver to someone (I'm looking at you, Mickey Mantle) who is then going to run that organ into the ground in a few years, as opposed to giving it to someone who can utiltize for a long(er), healthier life. It's like giving a chain smoker a new lung. While I feel bad for addicts, as long as organs are in limited supply they should go where they do the greatest good.

That view sets up a lot of ethical and moral pitfalls, but one approach is what has been discussed in the posts above.

 

Let me clarify:
I absolutely agree that patients with the best long-term prognosis should be considered first. What I disagree with is the singular focus on addicts. What about the diabetics who eat themselves into renal failure? Mismanagement of a disease is universal, whether it's another relapse or having your 5th heart attack because you really, really like bacon.

 

While I think the alcoholic example gets the most attention I think it applies to all cases. I.e. the diabetic has to get their insulin levels under control, the heart transplant recipient has to lower their blood pressure, etc. I believe the policy is that you have to prove that you can maintain behavior that gives you the highest possibility that the transplant will be successful for your condition.

 

One of things that has struck me is that Americans generally don't like being told to do anything. Maybe it's in our rebellious nature. Any sort of policy that attempts to limit rights or freedoms gets a lot of discussion in pretty much every forum imaginable. Just look at gun control or abortions.

It seems to me that by making organ donation an "opt-out" policy, people that were ignorant of it before wouldn't be. It would force fence sitters to one side or the other. I think that a discussion ultimately leads to people that honestly feel like they don't want their bodies being used to opt out, and those that do, will. If that means more organs are being available and it keeps more people alive, or makes them whole, isn't that a good thing?