Organ donation.. Opt in, or Opt out??

[garhkal]

Over on the mil times forums, where we discussed organ donation, i brought up the aspect that some cities/states are looking to change how its done, from where we currently have people Opting into it, to where everyone is included unless they opt out.

Which do you favor?  As is (opt in), or everyone is part of it unless they choose not to?


PS, worktroll said let's keep this clean, otherwise it gets locked.

Me, i would rather it be as is..  At least opting in, you get to choose what is taken (some people i know who are doners say all, others only say the internals..

[MoneyLovinOgre4Hire]

Honestly, I don't see what the fuss is over with regards to organ donation in the first place.  I mean, if they're looking at me as a potential donor, I'm already past the point where I'm going to be worrying about it.

[GreekFire]

I'm in the "everyone's a part of it unless they decide to opt out" camp. I've met my fair share of people who aren't donors not because they're against it, but because they're too lazy to grab the sticker or they just never think about it.

It's not like my organs are going to be doing much once I'm dead. I'm curious about hearing what other people have to say on the topic.

[ShadowRaven]

I agree. I signed my medical card as an organ donor (I think, remind me to go look) because 1) I may be able to save someones life, and that's a pretty awesome idea for me and 2) when it comes time to harvest, I don't need them any more. I have no religious reasons not to, though I respect those who feel differently that way, so yeah. I'm all in favor of it.

Still, I think it should be the choice of everyone, not let someone else make that decision. I go for opting in rather then opting out, simply because I find there are more people who are going to be ignorant to the fact one way or another.

[GreekFire]

Still, I think it should be the choice of everyone, not let someone else make that decision. I go for opting in rather then opting out, simply because I find there are more people who are going to be ignorant to the fact one way or another.

Hmm, interesting. I'm honestly a bit biased, because my grandmother died of kidney failure. She would most likely be alive today had there been a kidney available to transplant, but because of a lack of organ donors, she passed away.

It's my opinion that keeping the living alive is more important that trying not to offend anyone by accident - I'm for publicizing the matter well enough so that the entire affected region is aware of the change, then going forward with switching it to opt-out.

Also, garhkal, a question relevant to what you posted in the other thread (I don't want to start posting in 2 threads on this at once): I was under the impression that reconstructive surgery was done whenever surface tissue etc was taken from the corpse, and the corpse was still presentable in an open casket. Am I mistaken?

[garhkal]

Whether it was just sour grapes or an actual incident that a co-worker was relating, one guy who did have to go on emergency leave for a dead loved one, came back moaning about how they had to have a closed casket funeral due to the massive scaring on the face from tissue removal and the eyes being taken out. 

Now one poster on another message board has mentioned (might just be an urban legend) but some feel that organ doners are less apt to be saved by doctors..

[ShadowRaven]

most likely that's an urban myth. I don't really expect most doctors to ever know if a patient is an organ donor or not unless they die.

[Drop Bear]

Medical professionals in the Family and I can say they try harder to keep you alive if you are a Donor, some of the humor attached to the reason is a bit grim to post on a PG board.

[Sigma]

My card says just leave enough of me for an open casket.

[Sabelkatten]

Opt out, definitely. I read one investigation that showed that something like 70% of people were willing to be donors, but only about 20% cared enough to find out how to do it!

Personally I'd be happy to be a donor - and then I want to be freeze-dried and sold as fertilizer, that way I'll do something useful with my "life"!

[Drop Bear]

My part of the world it's a box on your drivers licence and/or 18+ card, though your next of kin can over rule that on the presumption that you may have changed your mind since you last renewed your licence.

[William J. Pennington]

Opt in: its one of those decisions of serious nature to many people based on customs and faith that should require positive confirmation that you wish to participate.

[Taurevanime]

There is a long tradition of spiritual belief that says if your body is not buried whole you will not be whole in whatever afterlife there might be. It is why certain vile acts were committed on the dead of people not liked and also why people feel uncomfortable about the idea of organ donation.

Anyway the belief I hold is that you can't force people to do something against their will, and an opt out system no matter how well intended to me always feels like forcing something onto people. But one could argue opting in is as well. And that is my big conundrum. It's not whether organ donation or any other issue is good or bad. It's if a system that forces someone to be part of something unless they opt out is morally good or not. And my gut says no. But then the ends justify the means one could argue. So as you can see, for me this is not a simple issue.

[Ajax_Wolf]

Here in North Carolina, it's an opt-in system, with a simple yes/no answer when you get a driver's license, but your next of kin can donate your organs if your DL doesn't show you are a donor.

When it comes down to it, part me out before the organleggers get to me.

[Jaim Magnus]

I've always signed up as an organ donor.  I mean, at that point we're just meat and I don't need 'em anymore.

I think the best way is still to have it that you need to specifically say that you want to be a donor.  So the 'opt in' option.

[ItsTehPope]

Opt in, but that's always been my preferred mentality for *anything* vs default in, and opting out.

[garhkal]

most likely that's an urban myth. I don't really expect most doctors to ever know if a patient is an organ donor or not unless they die.

Thought it would be.. 
On the doc's knowing, i do remember an initiative in the UK back in the day to make armbands that doners wear..  Never heard if it ever passed though.. that would imo make it easier to tell who is/who is not a doner.

There is a long tradition of spiritual belief that says if your body is not buried whole you will not be whole in whatever afterlife there might be.

A counter point to that, I know more people who are doners and are religions than are not..

Here in North Carolina, it's an opt-in system, with a simple yes/no answer when you get a driver's license, but your next of kin can donate your organs if your DL doesn't show you are a donor.

That's always bugged me why they link it to your DL..  What of those who don't get a license (or cant due to having had it taken away/rescinded due to poor driving)??  How do those people make it known?

[ShadowRaven]

if you don't have a drivers liscence you should have 'govt issued photo ID' which is generally the same thing

[Ajax_Wolf]

That's always bugged me why they link it to your DL..  What of those who don't get a license (or cant due to having had it taken away/rescinded due to poor driving)??  How do those people make it known?

If you have a DL, you almost always carry it with you when you leave the house, so it makes it easier to ID donors, most of them coming from auto accidents. If you haven't let your next of kin aware of your intentions, your DL speaks for you when you can't.

if you don't have a drivers liscence you should have 'govt issued photo ID' which is generally the same thing

Correct, the NCID card also shows the organ donor heart symbol.

[garhkal]

To me it would make more sense for each hospital to be linked to the national doner database..  Assuming there is one.

[Pegasus Actual]

Personally, I'm of the opinion that it should be standard policy to retrieve useful organs from the deceased whenever practical to do so. In this particular case, I think the general good is better served by having people opt out if it must be optional at all. As it stands, I've opted in as an organ and tissue donor since I first got my driver's license and plan to continue doing so every time I renew it.

[Hersh67]

I get real leary when anyone invokes the term 'greater good'.  They usually have some very unsavory agendas. 

As to the question of opt in/opt out, I favor opt in.  Why?  Like the Pope, it's a matter of personal choice and should require some introspection.  It's a very serious decision. 

Some religions prohibit it outright, while some folks don't care for the idea of having their body cut into unecessarily.  Either way, it's *their* decision because it's their body.

 

[ShadowRaven]

Either way, it's *their* decision because it's their body. 

this. I am willing, because my religious beliefs allow it, and my personal beliefs encourage it. if i can save a life, or multiple lives after I am gone, That's a really very comforting thing for me, but having parts of themselves chopped out is a disturbing thing for many others. It's their choice. It is something I think should be put out there far more, so more people think about it, but it should be their choice to make.

[Sabelkatten]

As a counterpoint to all the above (myself included); since there's no "you" left to care about whether they take your organs or not when you're dead, isn't this really a question for the people you leave behind?

Of course that wouldn't really be practical, but it's worth thinking about.

[garhkal]

But which people matter?  Sposes?  kids?  parents?  In which order of preference do the doc's give weight to?

[Atlas3060]

As a counterpoint to all the above (myself included); since there's no "you" left to care about whether they take your organs or not when you're dead, isn't this really a question for the people you leave behind?

Of course that wouldn't really be practical, but it's worth thinking about.

I've always seen the idea of being a donor or not similar to leaving  a will. If I'm dead I'd like my last wishes to be fulfilled.
Yeah in the grand scheme of things my body is worm food or ash, but still its comforting to know that society will at least do the few last things I would like.

For the record I'm registered to be a donor if I die, but not for religious reasons per se. As a developer I appreciate how some code  is just out there for future developers to use, update, and benefit from. Since my body will be cremated the squishy things in me might as well be used, updated (maybe part of me will be used to find a new surgery or cybernetic discovery), and have someone benefit from them.

[Pegasus Actual]

I get real leary when anyone invokes the term 'greater good'.  They usually have some very unsavory agendas. 

As to the question of opt in/opt out, I favor opt in.  Why?  Like the Pope, it's a matter of personal choice and should require some introspection.  It's a very serious decision. 

Some religions prohibit it outright, while some folks don't care for the idea of having their body cut into unecessarily.  Either way, it's *their* decision because it's their body.

What about my opinion is an "unsavory agenda," and to whom is it unsavory? You're free to disagree with my opinion, but saying that I think something serves the "general good" is not grounds for claiming that I have some kind of sinister motive.

All I said was that I believe that, in the absence of an objection, organs and tissues in a corpse should, whenever necessary and feasible, be used for medical purposes. I live in the United States, where there is a shortage of transplantable tissues and organs on a regular basis. I believe that, rather than requiring an individual effort to specifically permit the use of one's body for potentially life-saving operations, it should be the default status. The dead, as far as I can tell, don't care by that point. I, personally, take pride in the idea that my death might allow somebody else to live or have a better life. I give blood on a regular basis for similar reasons. My actions are consistent with my stated beliefs, and I'm not coercing anyone to do anything against their will. The only difference that I can see between opting in and opting out in this specific topic is how apathy affects the outcome. The people with opinions will make the same choices they would have before; I just don't see why the system should default to catering to a specific subset of beliefs when there is a demonstrable benefit on the other side of the argument.

[Ajax_Wolf]

But which people matter?  Sposes?  kids?  parents?  In which order of preference do the doc's give weight to?

The same as the courts would use: spouse first, parents if the children are still minors, adult children, parents, more distant blood relatives.

Some religions prohibit it outright, while some folks don't care for the idea of having their body cut into unnecessarily.  Either way, it's *their* decision because it's their body.

Just to clarify this, only the Shinto religion and Gypsies discourages organ donation for transplant or dissection. The rest either have no formal position and leave the choice to the individual, or encourage the act as charity or brotherly love toward your fellow human beings.

http://www.organdonor.gov/about/religiousviews.html

[cray]

I'm in the "opt in" group. I mean, organ donation is a no-brainer - you won't need your healthy organs when you're dead - but if some folks have philosophical objections, squeamishness, or selfishness issues, then it's their right to say no, and they shouldn't have to 'manually' change their status.

Admittedly, I lean this way I really disliked the trend of early 2000s credit card companies to sign me up for shit unless I noticed the clause buried deep in junk mail that said I had to call up a fine-print 1-800 number to avoid $9.99 a month in some rewards/insurance/points plan. So, even when it's sensible to make everyone signed up by default, I don't like "must manually opt-out" plans.

But which people matter?  Sposes?  kids?  parents?  In which order of preference do the doc's give weight to?

That's usually established (in the US) by state law. "Next of kin" is usually the operative term. Spouse, parents, siblings - they determine when to pull the plug, perform an autopsy, cremate, or confirm organ donation. The decisions usually go in order of spouse, parents, and siblings, then other relatives/friends/government. The Terri Schiavo case (which is flame and ban fodder) was all about the prioritization of spouse vs. parents.

In certain circumstances, even parents and friends can be excluded from decisionmaking without a will. I had a friend pass away a few years ago and his family was unable to access or claim many of his legal aspects (e.g., bank accounts, home, real estate, property) because he hadn't left a will. They had a say in his organ donation and police matters, but not the aforementioned issues.

[Stormlion1]

Sorry I want a Viking Funeral and everything, organs and all get to go up in smoke with my corpse. That or bury me in a Cairn. But in the end I want all my organs inside me when I do. Do I have a reason to want this? Sure, There mine and you can't have them. Thats all the reason I need.