Organ Donation



  • Here in the Netherlands, we had a dark, "unethical" reality show.

    Basically, organ donation rates were pretty low here- mostly because it's something you have to specifically sign up for, rather than just checking [yes] when getting your driving license. So there was a reality show where the contestants were all people with fatal illnesses that needed a certain organ. The show would broadcast their lives and personalities and, by the end of the show, the viewers were supposed to vote on who they liked most- and subsequently, who would be given the life saving organ.

    Obviously, it was controversial and surreal and, at the end, it was revealed to be staged. Except, all of the contestants really were sick and they really did need organ donations or else they'd die.

    After that, the number of organ donors shot up like crazy.

    Good idea!



  • @cartman82 said:

    Good idea!

    Good idea: opt-out organ donation instead of opt-in.



  • @another_sam said:

    Good idea: opt-out organ donation instead of opt-in.

    Even better idea.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @another_sam said:

    Good idea: opt-out organ donation instead of opt-in.

    Sure, if you're some kind of fascist who believes other peoples' bodies don't belong to them.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Good idea!

    Seems like, you know, just putting a single checkbox on the driver's license application like we do here in the US might have been a quicker and less offensive solution to the problem, but, hey what do I know? I'm not Dutch.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Seems like, you know, just putting a single checkbox on the driver's license application like we do here in the US might have been a quicker and less offensive solution to the problem, but, hey what do I know? I'm not Dutch.

    But reality tv is more fun than filling forms.



  • Right; but what I'm saying it get rid of the form-filling and put a checkbox on an existing form everybody has to fill out already. You know, how the vastly superior United States does it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Right; but what I'm saying it get rid of the form-filling and put a checkbox on an existing form everybody has to fill out already. You know, how the vastly superior United States does it.

    Serious rebuttal. A private individual can't change govt forms, but they can organize a stunt to bring attention to the issue.



  • @cartman82 said:

    Serious rebuttal. A private individual can't change govt forms, but they can organize a stunt to bring attention to the issue.

    Ok but where the fuck is your useless Euro-government? Off giving loans to use wankers in Greece no doubt! Oh look at those Dutch go. More hand jobs for Tsipras.

    That was also a serious rebuttal.



  • I'd be more inclined to opt-in to donate my organs if my surviving family would be paid for my organs just like the hospital & doctors get paid for transplanting them.

    If they were providing the lifesaving operation for free because they're humanitarians, it might be different, but I refuse to give them something for free if they're going to make big bucks off it.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You know, how the vastly superior United States does it.

    Or they just could do it the Belgium way: declare everybody a donor unless you object



  • Yeah but we have this thing called "freedom".



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Yeah but we have this thing called "freedom".

    it's only a check box away ...


  • BINNED

    You're free to opt out


  • mod

    @Jaloopa said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    @Luhmann said:
    Or they just could do it the ■■■■■■■ way: declare everybody a donor unless you object

    Yeah but we have this thing called "freedom".

    You're free to opt out

    Now what was the response last time this idea was suggested? Oh yeah:

    @FrostCat said:

    Sure, if you're some kind of fascist who believes other peoples' bodies don't belong to them.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @FrostCat said:

    some kind of fascist who believes other peoples' bodies don't belong to them

    To be fair, after you're dead you can't actually own your own body. Because you're dead. It might be part of your estate, but that belongs (after tax) to your heirs, not to you.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    The key thing, though, is there is absolutely no reason to assume it belongs to the government, which is what an opt-out would do.



  • So you're dismissing an idea that could save lives on literally nothing more than a nitpicky argument about the term "ownership", and a leap of logic that having a different default somehow changes that notion?

    Now if that ain't worth a pedantry award...


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    So you're dismissing an idea that could save lives

    If someone wants to donate parts of their body to others after they die, I am perfectly OK with that. Turning it around so you have to say "no, don't assume it's fine to hack bits off of my corpse" is a different matter.


  • Fake News

    @FrostCat said:

    Turning it around so you have to say "no, don't assume it's fine to hack bits off of my corpse" is a different matter.

    Especially when elites like Dick Cheney and Steve Jobs get to jump the queue in the current system which is supposed to be all egalitarian and shit.



  • By that logic, the body is a private property that is inherited by your family and they can do with it whatever, as its their property. Including putting a funny hat on it and using it as a scarecrow.



  • @cartman82 said:

    property

    So necrophilia should be legal as long is you keep it in the family?



  • @Luhmann said:

    So necrophilia should be legal as long is you keep it in the family?

    By his logic, sure, why not? You own the body.



  • @cartman82 said:

    By his logic

    It sounds almost like there is some flaw in that logic, doesn't it?



  • @Luhmann said:

    It sounds almost like there is some flaw in that logic, doesn't it?

    Why it does, it does!



  • As a courtesy, we allow the person who dies to specify who should get parts of the body when they're done using it. In the absence of such a custom, and in general practice, the parts of the body belong to the first person to show up and claim them, whether that's a doctor, the government, a member of the deceased's family, or the UPS guy.


  • Fake News

    @cartman82 said:

    By that logic, the body is a private property that is inherited by your family

    No. You and only you own your body. If you want your organs to go wherever when you die, great - but it shouldn't be the default choice.



  • @lolwhat said:

    No. You and only you own your body. If you want your organs to go wherever when you die, great - but it shouldn't be the default choice.

    You don't exactly own your body, but whatever, not the point.

    I guess the question is why shouldn't the organ donation be the default? It's certainly more useful for society than burrying it or burning it.


  • Fake News

    @cartman82 said:

    You don't exactly own your body,

    Cite, please.

    but whatever, not the point.
    :wtf:
    I guess the question is why shouldn't the organ donation be the default? It's certainly more useful for society than burrying it or burning it.
    So, by default, the collective should get to dispose of your body as "it" sees fit? Or, in other words, the collective gets to own your body by default? Oh, and I'd *love* to see the fireworks when a devout Muslim doesn't opt out and the State attempts to collect its bounty.


  • @lolwhat said:

    dispose of your body

    That is totally unrelated to the medical practice of removing organs for donation.

    In Belgium everybody is presumed to be a donor. You can object and so does your family post mortem.


  • Fake News

    @Luhmann said:

    That is totally unrelated to the medical practice of removing organs for donation.

    The verb dispose has several definitions. English, motherfucker, do you speak it? :trollface:



  • @lolwhat said:

    @cartman82 said:
    By that logic, the body is a private property that is inherited by your family

    No. You and only you own your body. If you want your organs to go wherever when you die, great - but it shouldn't be the default choice.

    What does one have to do with the other? Are you also arguing that the coroner has no right to look at your body, or that the police has no right to move it from wherever you kick the bucket?

    @FrostCat said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:
    So you're dismissing an idea that could save lives

    If someone wants to donate parts of their body to others after they die, I am perfectly OK with that. Turning it around so you have to say "no, don't assume it's fine to hack bits off of my corpse" is a different matter.

    I don't buy it.

    Most people simply don't care what happens to their mortal remains after they die, as long as they're not desecrated in some egregious way. That's who the idea is targetting. If for whatever reason you subscribe to the idea that your organs are better off rotting in the ground than saving lives, there's a readily available checkbox to tick.

    It's not the government suddenly taking ownership of your body - it's simply saying "I'll take it, if you don't mind". And if you do mind, just tell them not to and they fuck off.



  • @lolwhat said:

    Cite, please.

    If I started doing certain stuff to my body, like hurting myself or trying to commit suicide, government will intervene. They won't intervene if I started destroying my computer, even though both actions can be seen as equally irrational.

    Therefore, I don't completely own my body as I do my computer.

    Not saying that's good or bad, just that's how things are right now.

    @lolwhat said:

    So, by default, the collective should get to dispose of your body as "it" sees fit? Or, in other words, the collective gets to own your body by default? Oh, and I'd love to see the fireworks when a devout Muslim doesn't opt out and the State attempts to collect its bounty.

    In both cases, you can decide whether you want your body harvested for organs or left for your family to bury it underground. The only difference is the default choice if you don't care either way.

    It makes sense to pick an option that produces a better outcome for the society at large.


  • Fake News

    @cartman82 said:

    If I started doing certain stuff to my body, like hurting myself or trying to commit suicide, government will intervene.
    ...
    Not saying that's good or bad, just that's how things are right now.

    Why do you think government is justified in intervening? Why should the government care what someone does, as long he doesn't harm the life, liberty or property of anyone else?

    I had missed that second sentence of yours above. That attitude (government ownership of the individual) needs to change.
    @cartman82 said:

    It makes sense to pick an option that produces a better outcome for the society at large.

    In that case, then, provide a tangible incentive by letting people sell their organs on a free market. If those organs are so valuable to society, then they'll command a fair price. At least in the U.S., there most certainly is a profit motive to getting people to donate their organs; otherwise, Cheney and Jobs wouldn't have been able to cut in line!


  • Fake News

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    Are you also arguing that the coroner has no right to look at your body, or that the police has no right to move it from wherever you kick the bucket?

    I look at things from the following angle: Does some particular action (or inaction) harm (or could cause imminent harm to) another person's life, liberty or property? If the answer is no, then what's wrong with it, really?

    Most people simply don't care what happens to their mortal remains after they die, as long as they're not desecrated in some egregious way.
    The unfortunate part there, is that it sets a precedent that the government can get away with anything, as long as "nobody cares." That then turns into *as long as nobody who matters, cares.*


  • @lolwhat said:

    I look at things from the following angle: Does some particular action (or inaction) harm (or could cause imminent harm to) another person's life, liberty or property? If the answer is no, then what's wrong with it, really?

    What harm does harvesting your organs bring to the now-deceased you? Is it bigger harm than having them left to decompose in the ground? Hell, I could even argue that putting them in someone else aims to preserve the organs which would otherwise be destroyed, i.e. harmed.

    Look, something needs to be done with your body after you die, even if you don't specify what that is. For now, the default is "eh, just let it rot", which to me is rather silly.

    @lolwhat said:

    The unfortunate part there, is that it sets a precedent that the government can get away with anything, as long as "nobody cares." That then turns into as long as nobody who matters, cares.

    Now that's just paranoia and slippery slope fallacy all around. It simply sets a - in my opinion - much saner default action, in place of another default action which is "to stick you in the ground". Again - it's not like now nobody's allowed to touch your corpse if you didn't allow them to beforehand. It's just the matter of what they do with it.



  • @lolwhat said:

    Cheney and Jobs wouldn't have been able to cut in line!

    I like how you ridicule your own idea of a free organ market in one paragraph.



  • @lolwhat said:

    Does some particular action (or inaction) harm (or could cause imminent harm to) another person's life, liberty or property?

    Not having enough people donating their organs seems a rather obvious harm to the people waiting for those organs to have, you know, a live.
    By your own definition it makes even more sense to push for donate as the default option.



  • <quote>
    dispose
    dɪˈspəʊz/
    verb
    verb: dispose; 3rd person present: disposes; past tense: disposed; past participle: disposed; gerund or present participle: disposing

    get rid of by throwing away or giving or selling to someone else.
    "the waste is disposed of in the North Sea"
    synonyms: throw away, throw out, cast out, get rid of, do away with, discard, jettison, abandon, eject, unload; More
    antonyms: retain, acquire, keep
    informal
    kill.
    "she came up with schemes for disposing of her husband"
    overcome (a rival or threat).
    "the Scottish champions were buoyant after they disposed of English champions Leeds"
    informal
    consume (food or drink) quickly or enthusiastically.
    "she watched him dispose of a large slice of cheese"

    incline (someone) towards a particular activity or mood.
    "prolactin, a calming hormone, is released, disposing you towards sleep"
    synonyms: incline, encourage, persuade, predispose, make willing, make, move, prompt, lead, induce, inspire, tempt, motivate, actuate; More

    arrange in a particular position.
    "the chief disposed his attendants in a circle"
    synonyms: arrange, order, place, put, position, orient, array, spread out, range, set up, form, organize, seat, stand; More
    literary
    determine the course of events.
    "the government proposed, but the trade union movement disposed"
    </quote>

    If you are not referring to #1, then perhaps #3, where the organs are disposed into several still warm bodies, suits better?

    :trolleybus:


  • Fake News

    @Luhmann said:

    I like how you ridicule your own idea of a free organ market in one paragraph.

    Wrong. What we have currently - allegedly - is a FIFO queue, with some (but not much) priority for actual need and actual chance of a reasonably extended lifespan for the recipient. This, of course, is not actually the case, as evidenced by Cheney and Jobs. By law, the people who donated the organs didn't get squat for monetary compensation - but somebody damn sure got paid. At least with a true free market, price transparency and tangible compensation occur.


  • Fake News

    @Luhmann said:

    Not having enough people donating their organs seems a rather obvious harm to the people waiting for those organs to have, you know, a live.

    Elaborate on the obviousness part.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @lolwhat said:

    By law, the people who donated the organs didn't get squat for monetary compensation - but somebody damn sure got paid.

    There are very good reasons for not compensating heirs for the organs of deceased relatives. The primary one is to help discourage the stupider and less-than-scrupulous from bumping off their nearest and dearest for cash. (“Need a fix? Bash in mum's head and get a bonus for a matched set of kidneys!” No thanks…)

    It's probably better to think of the money as being spent on everything else to do with the organ transfer process. After all, you don't want a new heart or liver put in you without it also being hooked so that it works correctly.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    By that logic, the body is a private property that is inherited by your family and they can do with it whatever, as its their property. Including putting a funny hat on it and using it as a scarecrow.

    I have much less of a problem with that than with arbitrary people helping themselves.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @cartman82 said:

    You don't exactly own your body, but whatever, not the point.

    Fuck you I don't.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Maciejasjmj said:

    And if you do mind, just tell them not to and they fuck off.

    Or, here's a far better idea: let them ask me.



  • @FrostCat said:

    @cartman82 said:
    You don't exactly own your body, but whatever, not the point.

    Fuck you I don't.

    Not really after you die, no. And all your other property is redistributed after you die, and if you don't leave a will it's also done according to arbitrary rules, so...

    @FrostCat said:

    @Maciejasjmj said:
    And if you do mind, just tell them not to and they fuck off.

    Or, here's a far better idea: let them ask me.

    They would, and if you fail to provide an answer, the default action fires off. Like now. Except the default is not "have them put your stuff in the ground", but "have them utilize it for something more useful than fertilizer".


  • Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election

    Alternatively, remove the choice for a default option entirely, so you must choose one or the other.



  • Here is something to think about: Your body is merely goods and chattels - a vessel, or vehicle for your mind and / or soul.

    If you harm your body you will be helped and encouraged to stop, quite possibly restrained. But if you harm your mind, in any conceivable way, to such an extend that you are considered to be insane by any definition or standard of society. Then you will be confined and treated in such a manner that you cannot exercise any control over thought or deed.

    So, to summarise: You can fuck with your body to your hearts content, but if you fuck with your mind.....



  • @loose said:

    but if you fuck with your mind

    Yeah, your mind is the government's property.



  • @lolwhat said:

    What we have currently

    Did I anywhere make claims on the current US practice other then that apparently allows cutting the line?

    @lolwhat said:

    the people who donated the organs didn't get squat for monetary compensation

    Reasoning being that western countries are trying to prevent organs to become a marketable good. If you talk about a free market, you talk about paying the delivery side and selling to the highest bidder.
    If you are just saying that there should be some form of financial compensation for donation, then that can be done by non-market systems.
    There are however very strict medical rules over when (cause of death, circumstances, ...) and who (no HIV patients, no drug addicts, no Sharly Sheen livestyle, ...) can donate, there has also this thing of the receiving end. Transplant has to be done immediately, you can't put an organ on the shelve. Meaning you have to have a matching recipient within reachable distance. Are we going to pay for the fact that I check the box and volunteer for donation, that I die and am considered a possible donor or only for the organs that are actually used? Only the last one I presume? But that makes checking the box more like an after death lottery.

    @lolwhat said:

    somebody damn sure got paid

    At least we can agree on that.

    @lolwhat said:

    Elaborate

    You don't consider it harm that people waiting for organs might die when they don't receive a transplant? Increasing the organ influx to me clearly reduces their chances of harm.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.