What is your stance on organ donation procedures?
Primary tabs
Submitted by mvenus929 on Sat, 02/18/2012 - 10:06
An opt-in system, where everyone who needs an organ has a chance to get one
50% (12 votes)
An opt-in system, where only those who have opted in have the chance at an organ
17% (4 votes)
An opt-out system, where everyone who needs an organ has a chance of getting one
25% (6 votes)
An opt-out system, where only those who have not opted out can get an organ
4% (1 vote)
Organ exchange should be outlawed.
4% (1 vote)
Only organs from living donors should be used.
0% (0 votes)
Total votes: 24
There are various means by which organs are acquired throughout the world. In the US, we have an opt-in policy, where only those who have agreed to donate their organs (and whose families agree post-humously) have their organs harvested. In the UK, there is an opt-out system in place, where any individual is deemed a potential donor unless they have specifically opted out. In Israel, they have an opt-in system, but there is a caveat in place where those who have opted in get preference over those who have chosen not to.
Which method do you agree with the most?
Comments
I'd most prefer a system in
I'd most prefer a system in which donors (or their families) were paid for the organs. Then there's actually an incentive to participate in an organ trading scheme, and that way the problems of donor organ scarcity and expense are fixed.
So I voted the first option. That seems closest to what I want.
Familes don't own the organs
Familes don't own the organs of their relatives, and how do you make a payment to a dead person?
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
Does a person own their own organs?
I'm pretty sure that you believe people own their own bodies. There are quite a few cherished liberal ideas (abortion, privacy in the bedroom, drug legalization) that are based at least in part on this notion which I happen to agree with.
One of the characteristics of most private property is that a person can bequeath or sell it to others. There may be some but offhand, I can't think of any examples of private property that does not have this characteristic. Further, people are allowed to give away their organs to a recipient of their own choice while they are alive so it seems to me logical that they should be able to give them away to their heirs or anyone they choose when they are dead.
The prohibitions against selling one's own or inherited organs are just government meddling with freedom. I understand the rational, but I don't agree with it. Basically the government is confiscating partial ownership rights of your body for their own social agenda. If the government can confiscate part of your body, then why can't it confiscate a woman's womb for 9 months or so?
Whenever the government interferes with markets it creates distortions. In this case the distortion is a shortage. There is also apparently a black market. I understand that kidney's are available in India at the right price and I'm not certain that the donors are always willing volunteers either. Black markets are ugly. I agree with Zophos that there would likely to be a much greater supply of organs if there was a profit incentive. A lot of people would change there minds about being organ donors if it meant leaving some cash for their loved ones. There are alternative ways to regulate the market that don't involve confiscation.
Wrong...
"Basically the government is confiscating partial ownership rights of your body for their own social agenda."
Factually incorrect. As was pointed out in the original post, here in the United States we have an "opt-IN system." Only voluntary participants in the organ donor program have their organs harvested.
Also, you CAN designate the recipient of your organs if you die. However, compatibility matches in these kinds of arrangements are so rare that the situation rates very little consideration. The reason that private organ donation FOR PROFIT is illegal is that it western medicine considers the practice to be pernicious and unethical. If you apply free market economics to organ donations, what you inevitably get is a system in which the rich get transplants and the poor just die.
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
No correct
I used the word "partial". Yes you can keep your organs so you have some property ruights. Once you decide to dispose of your organs your only choice is donation. Meaning you right to dispose of the organs in another manner has been confiscated.
As far as "For Profit" goes, It is a weak argument. It is interesting that the medical profession has decided that organs should be free but their own professional services should be compensated in a lavish manner. If the argument really had merit, the Doctors would be working for free too.
In a system where most people have insurance that pays the bills, there are other ways besides forcing organs to be free to ensure fairness between the wealthy and the poor. Of course the best way to ensure that organs are readily available is to create a market. That lesson has been proven over and over but some people just seem incapable of grasping it.
I'll repeat that the same logic that allows the government to partially confiscate your property rights with respect to your organs could also be used to outlaw abortions. It could be considered "pernicious" to terminate a fetus and a whole lot of people (not me) think it is exactly that.
Incoherent?
You "logic" seems more than a little incoherent to me, possibly because you are jumping back and forth between so many unrelated issues in your attempt to find some small victory for your ad absurdum arguments. Legally speaking, the "logic" you suggest is simply not there as evidence by the fact that the conclusions you reach are not consistent with what is considered settled law in this country.
But hey, if you really want to sell your organs, there IS somewhere you can go...Iran. Virtually all other countries have come to realize in recent years just how ethically problematic it is to allow legal organ trading. Just look at the experience of India, China and the Philippines, who had widespread problems with the practice.
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/152ed52.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0116_040116_EXPLorgantra...
http://www1.american.edu/projects/mandala/TED/KIDNEY.HTM
http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&article=124049
http://organharvestinvestigation.net/
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
I have to agree with jbn on
I have to agree with jbn on this one. If for-profit organ trading is pernicious, why are for-profit grocery stores, or for-profit water utilities not pernicious? Do the poor suffer under these systems, while the rich grow fat and well-hydrated? We are not being absurd in pointing out these logical inconsistencies (when is it ever absurd to point out an inconsistency?); rather, we are seeking to increase the affordability and availability of organs to the same levels as food and water.
A market system is the best means of ensuring that all people have a shot of purchasing abundant, cheap water and food, and the same would go for organs. Only under a free market system can people make mutually beneficial trades, given their personal resources and priorities. Any other system creates scarcity by removing the profit motive for producing wealth.
Settled Law?
The prohibition on gay marriage was "settled law" until very recently. Did that prevent you from arguing an alternative point of view?
Medicine is a field that has advanced tremendously in my lifetime. In many cases, the technology has outpaced the ethics that govern it.
I think the fact that we are having this discussion and that it was initiated as a poll question suggests that we are a long ways from having resolved the best way to deal with organs.
"Lavish"?? Are you kidding me
"Lavish"?? Are you kidding me?
I'm giving up at least 7 years of my life just for medical training. I have to pay $50K a year for tuition alone, not to mention living expenses, since I'm an independent student. Scholarships and grants are virtually non-existent for grad students. I have to pay between $500 and $1000 (each) to take a total of 4 tests to prove that I know enough to become a physician. Not to mention travel, since one of them is only offered in 6 cities across the US. Then, when I finally do get paid for what I do in residency, I basically make minimum wage for the amount of time I put into it. It's only after residency that I can start actually making money, and by then I easily owe a quarter of a million dollars in student loans alone (which, now that we don't get subsidized loans as grad students, is all charged at an interest rate of 6.7%, or 8.5% if you have to take out Grad plus loans).
After all that, the $150K I make pretty much goes towards taxes and bills. It's enough to live well, but I wouldn't call it a lavish lifestyle by any stretch of the imagination. And with the new healthcare legislation and continued cuts in our reimbursements thanks to arguments like yours, some people in private practice can't even afford their overhead now.
Sorry for the tangent. That topic is a bit of a sore topic for me.
Lavish is accurate
I don't begrudge Doctors anything. I agree that they make a huge investment and they deserve to be compensated for it. My brother in law, a urologist is making very close to a million per year. Needless to say, his student loans are long since paid-off. He is living a very sweet lifestyle. More power to him (and you)! I know not all Doctors are, in the recent popular vernacular, one percenters, but it is a profession that has a very high percentage of them. Lavish is definitely a word that fits.
My point was that the same Doctors who think it is fair that they should be paid thousands or tens of thousands for a medical procedure like a transplant (and I don't disagree with them), think that the person who owns the organ that makes the transplant possible should get nothing.
It takes at least TWO things to make an organ transplant possible: a skilled doctor and a willing organ owner. Why is it "pernicious" to compensate one but not the other?
Still not bothering to read the links, I see...
This has already been explained to you, but since you didn't bother to read the lined material, I will spell out for you the two basic arguments against allowing an open organ market.
The first reason is that selling organs leads to the commoditizing of human bodies, which in turn leads to a lot of undesirable side effects: black markets, coercive acquisition, self-mutilation out of desperation, etc.
The second reason is that open organ markets inevitably lead to exploitation of the poor by the rich, since only the poor will sell their organs, and only the rich will be able to afford to buy them.
This has been the consistent experience of countries that have engaged in open organ trading (as discussed in the links above),
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
I stated in my first post
I stated in my first post that I was familiar with the arguments. I just reject them.
As far as commoditizing the human body goes:
1) Black market arise as a result of suppression of free markets,
2) Coercive acquistion is just an extension of black markets. It is illegal and would remain illegal. Given how easy it is to trace organs and the low volume, it would be relatively simple to regulate. Just strip any Doctor who deals in uncertified organs of their right to practice. If somebody woke up after being slipped a mickey and were sans kidney, it would be pretty easy to investigate every kidney transplant in the USA that occurred in the next 7 days.
3) Depriving desperate person of their property rights (body parts) is better? Just leave them desperate?
As far as exploitation of the poor goes, so what? Only poor people clean toilets and muck out sewers too. I question the wisdom of protecting the poor by stealing their assets. They have brains of their own and I think they should be allowed to make their own decisions.
So...what I am getting from you...
...is that you are perfectly okay with allowing the rich exploiting the the poor. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to make the issue any more understandable to one so completely dispossessed of basic human empathy and ethics.
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
Let them use their own brains
I'm not in favor of FORCING anybody to do anything including donating their organs. If somebody makes a voluntary choice, I don't see it as exploitation.
Really?
Then why did you say, "As far as exploitation of the poor goes, so what?"
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
I wrote a whole paragraph
I wrote a whole paragraph in that post you are referring to.
You think it is somehow helping poor people and protecting them from exploitation to have the government partially confiscate their assets. I disagree.
The poor always get the short end of the stick. They get the nasty jobs that the rich won't do too. So what. Are you going to further protect them from exploitation by prohibiting them from working as garbage men too? Then, in the name of protecting them from exploitation you will not only have confiscated one of their few assets that can be converted to wealth (meaning they would no longer be poor), you have also taken away their ability to earn a living. You are so compassionate.
In the echo-chamber...
I'm sure that this all sounds good within your personal echo-chamber, but your opinion seems to completely ignore the experience of the countries who, in relatively recent history, HAVE had programs exactly like the ones you suggest.
"It is better to be hated for what you are than to be loved for something you are not." ~ Andre Gide
If that was unclear, I meant
If that was unclear, I meant that should organs be harvested in the event of a person's death, their estate gets the money for the organs. This is what happens to a person's assets when they die, no?
Paid?
Nobody should ever have to pay to live. I knew somebody that needed an organ and the have to change enough in there lives to receive and organ. The person that needs the organ pays enough in there lives to be able to get one without cost to them. I also heard one day from a young girl that said. When I die I want to be an organ doner, she went on to say,she was not going to need them so why not give them to somebody that can use them. It made me cry tears of joy that such a young lady could be so unselfish
Your sentiment is nice, but
Your sentiment is nice, but not realistic.
People have to pay to 'live' all the time... you have to pay for food, housing, clothing, medical care, etc. Yes, there are options available for people who can't afford those things, but organ transplant is a serious operation, and you're on medications that you have to take for the rest of your life after the transplant. Not to mention precautions to make sure you don't get sick, etc. It's not something that we can afford to just give away to everyone who needs one, especially since organs are in shot supply as it is.
That said, I did read an article a couple years ago that stated that it's cheaper to pay for several years of anti-rejection medications and a transplant than to pay for years of dialysis (end-stage renal disease is the only disease qualifier to get on Medicare before 65). That was an interesting figure.
I'm with Chelle on this one.
I'm with Chelle on this one. We "pay to live" every day. Some of us have an easier time with the payments than others. Some of us are able to pay for better quality of living than others. And some of us need a little more help making the payments. But someone always pays.
And why shouldn't they pay? What organization can stay alive without money? Even churches or nonprofits / charities have to have money to survive. Salaries, building maintenance, insurance premiums, research, operational costs (such as power / electricity / garbage pickup) - even shoveling the snow in their parking lots and salting their front steps - it all takes money. If no one's paying, that hospital / clinic is not staying open.
I have absolutely no idea how much the average transplant costs; I'm sure that people going through that need must be going through something horrible. And I'm sure that adding costs on top of that would seem to compound what they are going through. But that doesn't make the cost unnecessary.
College
Is college really for those that are less fortunate? If not, what are the alternatives?
I have found the enemy, and the enemy is me.