Organ Donation - Opt-in or opt-out?

[Liquid]

Wales is now incredibly close to becoming an opt-out country, with regards to organ donation. Link - BBC

I myself am not that fussed about it. I just hope that the assembly does enough promotion to ensure that those who do not want to donate their organs will be aware of the consequences of the new laws.

I can see the argument that opt-out is very assumptive and that the government has no entitlement to harvest my organs without my permission, but like I said... I'm not that fussed about this one. If I can still help people once I've died, I'd like that.

What are your thoughts on it? Opt-in or opt-out?

 

[Slash]

Personally I beleive my organs are my own and that I have the right to keep them even after my death unless I give permission. I would be in favor of having them donated if needed as far as family, and possibly others though.

If I died and somehow knew they were being taken I would be pissed unless I ok'd it. I'm not really against it though. I believe that with my permission they can take them, but without they have no right no matter how much it is needed.

 

[Keef]

Wales is now incredibly close to becoming an opt-out country, with regards to organ donation. Link - BBC

I myself am not that fussed about it. I just hope that the assembly does enough promotion to ensure that those who do not want to donate their organs will be aware of the consequences of the new laws.

I can see the argument that opt-out is very assumptive and that the government has no entitlement to harvest my organs without my permission, but like I said... I'm not that fussed about this one. If I can still help people once I've died, I'd like that.

What are your thoughts on it? Opt-in or opt-out?

My first was, "what's it matter? You're dead. It should be mandatory."

But then I realized that your body can be considered at least part of your estate, things that belong to you and will be left when you die. I'm not sure if one's body is currently recognized as part of their estate but that's the best way I can explain it. Anyway, my point is that it's yours and therefore you reserve the right to plan what happens to it when you die.

Therefore, an opt-in system is the only logical solution.

There are two main methods for determining voluntary consent: "opt in" (only those who have given explicit consent are donors) and "opt out" (anyone who has not refused is a donor). Opt-out legislative systems dramatically increase effective rates of consent for donation.[1] For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.[1][2]

con·sent

[kuhn-sent] Show IPA

verb (used without object)

1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.

2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
noun

3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.

4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

5. Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.

The Wiki article says Austria has a 99.98% consent rate. The Wiki article is wrong. What Austria has is a .02% exclusion rate - it doesn't have a consent rate at all because nobody consented to anything. I don't remember the terminology, but according to definition the act of doing nothing can never be construed as consent.

 

[Liquid]

Anyway, my point is that it's yours and therefore you reserve the right to plan what happens to it when you die.

Which you are technically still able to do; you're not forced to have your organs whipped out, but you will have to explicitly tell the government that you don't want your organs harvested. Kinda sneaky, really.

But I'm happy to donate my body to medical science when I die so, it doesn't faze me that much.

 

[Slash]

Which you are technically still able to do; you're not forced to have your organs whipped out, but you will have to explicitly tell the government that you don't want your organs harvested. Kinda sneaky, really.

But I'm happy to donate my body to medical science when I die so, it doesn't faze me that much.

I think it should be the opposite then. You should not have to tell them to not take them because they just go in and do it if you don't tell them not to. If anything they should leave you alone unless as I said, you give them permission.

 

[Dean]

You have to tell the Donor-register if you want to donate your "parts", here .

I'll have to make the choice next year, but I think I'll go for the "all organs" - or "all organs, with the accept of relatives". If anybody can use my organs, when I'm dead, then go ahead...

 

[Zenith]

Brings a whole new meaning to "Death and taxes."

 

[Keef]

Which you are technically still able to do; you're not forced to have your organs whipped out, but you will have to explicitly tell the government that you don't want your organs harvested. Kinda sneaky, really.

But I'm happy to donate my body to medical science when I die so, it doesn't faze me that much.

Like I just edited my post, and like Danoff (I think it was him) could explain better, doing nothing is not giving consent. If anything it's a complete lack of consent. Any opt-out law is just a product of wicked legal re-definition of terms and jargon meant to absolve any opportunity to argue against it.

Example? Have you ever read any of the Amendments to the US Constitution? Here's the text of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pretty cut-and-dry. Not complicated. Makes sense. Read it twice, maybe three times and you'll get it. Hard to argue with.

Well, here's a textbook on Constitutional Law, which is basically the field of explaining the Constitution for legal purposes.

I recently read the first couple pages of the First Amendment chapter in a constitutional law book. I didn't finish it by any means. As far as I can tell, the field of constitutional law is nothing more than a glorious effort to construe the meaning of the Constitution and Amendments to the point of complete nonsense and irrelevance.

A good idea would be to completely abolish the field of constitutional law, all of its history, and everybody involved in it, and replace everything with a high school graduate having above-average reading skills and both a modern and archaic English dictionary. For every single constitutional matter in the country we will refer to this high school graduate and within 10 minutes the issue will be resolved by using basic reading skills and common sense.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

I think it should remain as opt-in, although I recognise that people are too lazy to opt-in even if they are in favour of organ donation, which creates issues with lack of donor organs and long waiting lists or even death for those unfortunate enough to need a transplant.

Personally, the idea of being buried 'incomplete' makes me feel a little uneasy, although I couldn't explain why. Despite this, I have already opted in, as if the shoe was on the other foot I know how hopeless I would feel.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Opt-out...

If in death you can save somebody else's life... then that brings with it a nobility to your death... and it gives others hope.

We are but machines... and there is a market for second hand components.

 

[Keef]

I think it should remain as opt-in, although I recognise that people are too lazy to opt-in even if they are in favour of organ donation, which creates issues with lack of donor organs and long waiting lists or even death for those unfortunate enough to need a transplant.

I don't understand how it's only a 12% consent rate in the US. In Ohio when you get a state ID/driver's license they ask you if you want to be an organ donor. Every time. There's a lot of cars on the road.

Maybe it's got something to do with religion. That's about consistent with the percentage of Americans who claim no particular religion on the census. It's those damn selfish Catholics, I tell you.

If in death you can save somebody else's life... then that brings with it a nobility to your death... and it gives others hope.

I see no nobility in being so lazy that you vote for your government to force you to give up your organs by default. Nobility would be going to them and saying, yes, I would like to be an organ donor. That opportunity to make the conscious decision doesn't exist in an opt-out model.

 

[niky]

While I would love to see more people donate organs, an opt-out system is very presumptive.

As said: Silence does not explicitly mean consent. An opt-out system is basically an unsigned contract. There ain't no such thing. If the system were implemented as: "When you reach adulthood, you can choose whether or not to donate your organs when you die." that would be just.

Furthermore, a 99.8% rate may sound great and all, until you realize that not all of those people will ever become organ donors. Those with diseases, infections, poor health, etcetera, will not qualify to become organ donors.

Looking at the rates, Australia's actual donations per million is not far removed from Germany's. 21 per mil versus 16 per mil. Perhaps with better publicity and awareness drives, plus financial incentives for donations, that level can be increased without the use of an opt-out system.

I've volunteered to give blood in the past, but was turned down due to having had hepatitis in the past. I would love to give organs, but being diabetic with a fatty liver and a familial condition that causes gut problems, I doubt any of my organs would help anyone.

On a personal level, I like the opt-out system. It's logical and it fills a need. But on an ethical level, I can see it as being an infringement on human rights.

 

[Zenith]

Nobility? How can you claim nobility in a decision that you didn't make?

I agree with Keef's sentiment. Not saying no does not give consent. This is rape prevention 101, boys.

 

[W3H5]

I'm all for parts donation but I do think that everyone has the right to keep their bits if they want to. I would like to see an opt-out system since so many people who would donate aren't carrying the right kind of notification when they could be used so then go to waste.

Opt-out gives those who want their bits the chance to keep them while anyone who doesn't opt-out can be assumed to want to donate.

This is the way I believe would benefit the populous.

 

[Joel]

I think it would be better to simplify the process of opting in. I signed up to be a donor when I got my beginner's at 16, but I got another letter when I passed my test for my full license this year. Apparently it's a two step process that requires you.to go online and register your consent...after you gave consent by signing up for a health card that has DONOR printed on it.

I wonder what the percentage is of people who thought they were signed up but aren't.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Opt-in.

Some people hold strong religious/ethical beliefs on this.

Personally I don't think my organs will ever get called up, but I am listed as a donor.

 

[BobK]

I agree that opt-out is an infringement on human rights.

The devil is in the details on this, as well. If you decide to opt out, do you have to carry a card saying you are not an organ donor? What happens if you leave the card at home one day and die in an accident? They go ahead and take your organs anyway?

I'm also troubled by the encroachment aspect of this. Today you can freely opt out (if in an opt-out jurisdiction). Will this always be a choice? Will there be strings attached to the choice in the future? Will opting out become like trying to get a gun permit in New York, i.e. technically possible, practically pretty much impossible?

The more I think about it the more objections I find.

 

[DK]

I'd support an "opt-in" system, like previous users have said, not saying no != consent.

Also, I'm a bit overweight right now, so I doubt anyone might want my heart when I die.

 

[lbsf1]

Whilst I'm for organ donation and have a donor card myself, I would feel really uncomfortable with a Opt-Out situation. My body is exactly that, its MINE, the government shouldn't automatically reserve ownership of this when I die. If I give them consent to do so then that all good, however not saying anything IS NOT giving consent.

I view an Opt-Out system as the government gaining control in an area where it really shouldn't. I already feel that the state takes to much control over aspects of our life (Why can't I go out, set fire to a naturally growing plant and breath in the smoke from it??), I'll stop now as I will get abit off topic, however you get my point.

 

[Liquid]

90 days left until Wales goes opt-out

 

[ExigeEvan]

As a Welshy, and subject to this law I appreciate all the comments about it being a step too far but then my feelings are also:

- I'm dead.
- I can't sell ky organs so they're worth nothing to my family.
- They're going to incinerate my body whether I ask for a burial or not, so I might as well let them burn as little as possible.

I was oncr of the opinion they could harvest anything but my eyes, and then I realised I can only see today because of the wonders of contacts/glasses, so who am I to deprive someone who needs my corneas when I no longer do?

 

[FoolKiller]

I've somehow missed this and I guess I should weigh in.

I am in favor of Opt-in. Consent is a must. Implied consent is no consent.

The bigger issue than just consent though is the fact that to obtain many organs a brain dead state is necessary. Does opt-out allow a family member to intervene and keep that person on life support? I think back to the Terri Schiavo case. She was technically brain dead, to the point that removing life support was not considered murder, but she still looked around and appeared to respond to external stimuli. There was a legal fight between her parents and husband. Would the legal fight have been a non-case in an opt-out system?

It is easy to agree with an opt-out policy when you think it is taking an organ from a corpse that is completely dead, but it appears different when you realize that they can still move their head and react to sights and sounds.

When my father died my brother and I had to make the decision to stop al forms of life support because the brain was damaged to the point where any recovery would have left him semi-vegetative, and as he still wasn't stable it could only get worse. In our case the organs were not going to be viable, but if they had been and the law did not let us come to the decision to take him off the respirator I would have been very upset.

It is very important to be very clear on what opt-out means. If there is family present do they lose their legal right the moment the doctor declares the patient brain dead?