[W01f]

Should organ donation after death require consent, like it does now in most developed countries, or would you support a law that says everyone's consent is assumed unless they specifically opt out before they die? Basically it would change the ones who have to do the paperwork from those who do want to donate to those who don't.

This poll is inspired by this proposed law in Canada. I'll give my opinion later.

[Nets]

I voted assumed consent. I see no reason to let perfectly good organs go to waste.

I can understand the opposite viewpoint as well, however.

[MightyMinarchist]

What this boils down to (at least, in my mind) isn't just who fills out the paperwork.

The real question is should one have to tell the State (or hospital or whatever) to back off and not harvest one's organs, or should the State not even get involved until one invites the State to harvest one's organs? I support the latter, having the State harvest your organs just because you forgot to fill out the "opt-out" form doesn't sit well.

Besides, if consent is assumed, and most people do not opt out, won't we then be sitting on a mountain of organs that, ultimately, won't be transplanted? That equates to a lot of wasted money in harvesting.

[Nets]

Mighty, I guarantee you we will never be in a situation where there are wasted organs, where we are harvesting too many from the dead.

Anyways, I'd prefer that to deaths due to a shortage of organs any day.

[Zagadka]

In my perfect world, it would be assumed. There is only gain from it. Harvest what is useful, cremate the rest. Save lives, reduce land impact of cemeteries.

However, I also respect the rights of people to control their own bodies, including after death, as well as their religious traditions.

So, grudgingly, it can not be assumed - but people should be encouraged to donate.

[dilpill]

I said required consent, but I changed my mind. I should have chosen Other.
Everyone should be asked whether they would want their organs donated say, when they sign up for insurance. With universal health care this would be especially effective.
I think that organ donation is good, and should be encouraged, so if someone consents to organ donation, they should be eligible for a small premium decrease as an incentive. However, to discourage saying yes at first to get a lower rate, and then later "changing your mind" when your whole intention was to not donate your organs, but get a better rate, your premium should be higher after you uncheck the box than someone who has never consented to organ donation.
It is not a perfect world though, and even with universal health care, someone is bound to get through without having answered the question, and in that case, their organs shouldn't be donated.

[Dr House]

Other

Assumed consent, but people should be allowed to sell their organs if they so please. And the state should honor any such agreement even if the person has not explicitly opted out of donation.

[Zagadka]

Another factor plays into this...

Bioengineering. We aren't very far away from growing many human-compatible organs in pigs, and after that, I can't imagine it will be a huge leap to go to just engineering them without a (real) animal.

[ingliz]

Required consent

[El Gilroy]

Assumed. Unless someone goes for cryopreservation, I'd say the organs ought to be made use of right away.

[Manuel]

Other. Your body belongs to the greater good upon death. You are an individual within a greater collective, and upon your death, your individuality ceases except in memory, and the state has full rights to everything within your skin it feels is necessary.

No opting out. Required aspect of citizenship

[stalker]

I voted assumed consent. I see no reason to let perfectly good organs go to waste.

I can understand the opposite viewpoint as well, however.

[cocard]

Assumed consent.

[Todd D.]

Hmmm...does this mean that I can have sex with corpses under "assumed consent" as well?

Required consent is the only one that makes sense, of course. Your body does not default to state property merely because you expire. As such, they have no right to just assume that you'd be OK with it and move on. Unless you explicitly give your permission to use your organs, they have no right to use them.

[Paradigm]

Required consent is the only one that makes sense, of course. Your body does not default to state property merely because you expire. As such, they have no right to just assume that you'd be OK with it and move on.

Why must they assume you'd be ok with it? Even from a libertarian standpoint, I'm not so sure it's violating anyone's rights, since libertarianism is based on self-ownership. Does self-ownership continue when said self is dead? If so, what right do they have to take your body to the morgue or bury you in the ground if you didn't leave a will? Shouldn't they use a medium to contact your dead spirit and get its consent?

[Kylie]

Like Zag, in my perfect world, it would be assumed. I think the option discussed is a fair one.

However, I'm not sure how it will roll, and I don't see it being an option in the US anytime soon. Furthermore, it's not that difficult to become an organ donor in the US, at least in my state. All you have to do tell them at the DMV in Pennsylvania. I have it on my driver's license.

[John08]

I would whole heartedly support any measure that made Organ, Tissue, Blood, and Bone Marrow donation mandatory at death.

It is important to note that I have donated Blood before, and plan to again soon. I'm also an Organ and Tissue Donner.

won't we then be sitting on a mountain of organs that, ultimately, won't be transplanted?

Actually, the waiting list for an organ is seriously long (like a year or so), because not enough people donate. Many of the people on the waiting list die before they get a transplant. If a mandatory policy of donation were to go into effect, we would still end up (I'm geussing) with people who died waiting, but a much shorter waiting list. Which means less people die in the interum.

Your body belongs to the greater good upon death. You are an individual within a greater collective, and upon your death, your individuality ceases except in memory, and the state has full rights to everything within your skin it feels is necessary.

Freakin' Borg!

[Einherjar]

Other. Organ donation, reflective of the mechanisation of human beings, should be banned altogether.

[W01f]

I would be ok with assumed consent if it weren't for one little problem. What happens to all the people who die unexpectedly, from accidents and such? Anyone who's incapable, for one reason or another, of making their decision before they die but still has healthy organs ripe for the picking shouldn't be assumed to be giving consent. That said, I'm sure some rules could be put into place for that sort of thing, so I do like the idea as a whole.

[John08]

What happens to all the people who die unexpectedly, from accidents and such? Anyone who's incapable, for one reason or another, of making their decision before they die but still has healthy organs ripe for the picking shouldn't be assumed to be giving consent

So, lets play this oppion out as a little example. Lets say, you were diagnosed with stage three lung cancer (only using lung because it seems to be one of the most common versions). Lets say you had double lung cancer (that is to say, both your lungs have cancer). You would likely be on a waiting list for a new lung for a year or so, and would probably die before you got one. Or, what if it was some close to you? A spouse, or a parent, maybe one of your childern?

Still don't like assumed consent donation? I'm trying not make an 'Appeal to Emotion' but people seem to understand the need for donation/assumed consent if it becomes personnal.