Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 1st May 2012 12:10 UTC
Internet & Networking "Starting today, users in the United States and UK will be able to add that they're organ donors to their Timelines, and if they're not organ donors, they can find links to official organ donation registries and instantly enroll." A commendable effort, but for some reason, I find it quite creepy, too. What if you leave your Facebook open and someone enlists you? On a related note - if you're not registered as a donor yet, please consider doing so. It might save someone's life.
Thread beginning with comment 516557
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Opt-out here
by cfgr on Tue 1st May 2012 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Opt-out here"
cfgr
Member since:
2009-07-18

I can understand some of the principal arguments against an opt-out system, but I think it boils down to trust in your government. I think mine (Belgian) has a great many flaws, but there are a lot of things they do right as well. This is one of them.

Compare that to the Netherlands where there is an opt-in system (due to protestant lobbying - how very Christian of them!). There was a lot of anger here a year ago because in the EU you are not allowed to deny other EU citizens basic rights such as healthcare. So what happened is that the Netherlands have long waiting lists due to their opt-in system, and therefore Dutch people signed up on Belgian waiting lists instead (which are much shorter due to the opt-out). Needless to say, our lists increased, our own citizens were not allowed to get priority due to the EU equality rules, and we were basically carrying the costs for Dutch healthcare.

The anger wasn't really about that our lists increased, but about the fact that the Netherlands stubbornly refused to go for an opt-out system while profiting of their more enlightened neighbouring countries who do.

It's not an easy thing to decide on when looking from a "does my government have the right to decide over my body?" angle, but I am nonetheless convinced that overall an opt-out donation system is the best way for a healthy social community.

Edited 2012-05-01 19:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Opt-out here
by r00kie on Tue 1st May 2012 21:06 in reply to "RE[4]: Opt-out here"
r00kie Member since:
2009-12-10

That issue of Netherland citizens having to go to another country to get proper health care sucks, but that's another issue. I don't know the background of that so I can't comment on it.

On the other hand it's disturbing to think that due to this opt-out scheme not all possible avenues of treatment might be attempted because of keeping organs viable or because someone privileged is needing them now (we're all equal, just some are more equal than others). I still say that this should be opt-in, like giving blood, you do it because you know why you should , because you want to and because you are aware of how things work. The best way to have a healthy social community is to have people properly educated and informed and give consent.

People are not stupid, if things are explained clearly enough, anyone sane and reasonable is able to understand and do an informed decision.

On the issue of trusting the government, if it weren't for all the competent, honest and truthful governments all over europe and the world we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in. I'd say this answers that question.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Opt-out here
by cfgr on Tue 1st May 2012 22:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Opt-out here"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

That issue of Netherland citizens having to go to another country to get proper health care sucks, but that's another issue. I don't know the background of that so I can't comment on it.

It just illustrates that the organ shortage is much less of a problem in opt-out countries.

On the other hand it's disturbing to think that due to this opt-out scheme not all possible avenues of treatment might be attempted because of keeping organs viable or because someone privileged is needing them now (we're all equal, just some are more equal than others).

I think this is unrelated to the opt-in/opt-out situation. There is already a priority list for urgent situations, e.g. people needing a liver right now or they'll die.

The best way to have a healthy social community is to have people properly educated and informed and give consent.

In an utopian paradise, yes I agree. However, real world facts show otherwise. The conflict with the Netherlands is just an example.

People are not stupid, if things are explained clearly enough, anyone sane and reasonable is able to understand and do an informed decision.

Unfortunately they are. No matter how hard you try to explain and convince them, many people simply do not pay attention or do not want to think about it.

On the issue of trusting the government, if it weren't for all the competent, honest and truthful governments all over europe and the world we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in. I'd say this answers that question.

A government has many aspects. They perform well in some areas and bad in others. I'd rather not throw the good parts out. I won't trust them with my private information, but I don't see how they can screw up organ donations and make it worse than the default "no donation at all".

Rather than throwing it all away, I think the right thing to do is to either cut off dead branches or fix them. Yes they screwed up in this crisis, but so did private companies/banks (probably even more so). Politicians must trust advise from others. Mostly that advise comes from private companies and institutes. Sometimes they get it wrong, but what would the alternative be? Getting advise from the gut? Or do you want them to do nothing and see how the economy implodes? At least we can learn from this for the next time something similar happens ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Opt-out here
by mahiyu on Tue 1st May 2012 21:07 in reply to "RE[4]: Opt-out here"
mahiyu Member since:
2010-08-06

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the State presuming consent to do whatever it likes with peoples' bodies after death. I much prefer an opt-in system (and for the record I've opted in.)

In my opinion, there are two things that need to be done to make the system work better. First of all, give people on the organ donor register priority should they ever need an organ, with people who haven't registered getting organs if there are any spare. Second, and I know this would create some uncomfortable situations for doctors, get rid of the system we have in the UK whereby relatives can override the deceased wishes and forbid their organs being used for donations. As I see it, if I'm happy for my organs to be used, no-one should be able to refuse on my behalf.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Opt-out here
by cfgr on Tue 1st May 2012 22:23 in reply to "RE[5]: Opt-out here"
cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea of the State presuming consent to do whatever it likes with peoples' bodies after death. I much prefer an opt-in system (and for the record I've opted in.)

Yeah but the question is: to whom do your physical remains belong after you died? Your family? Society?

It would seem that in the UK, your body belongs to your family and in that way it makes sense that they have the final word - even when you opted in. It's their property after all. On the other hand, the state can seize a body for an autopsy and then release it to the family which would imply that the government has ownership first which it then transfers.

So from a purely principle perspective, it's very fuzzy anyway. Therefore I'd rather have a system that at least helps society by default. Let's care for the living first.

Edited 2012-05-01 22:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1