Bill would make Coloradans organ donors by default

[Nathan Poe]

Because in a system of selling organs we've seen coercion and other problems in potential systems. These coercive elements are absent in the opt out system. It's all the benefit (making up for shortage of organs), without any cost.

Any buyer/seller relationship has the potential for coercion and other problems -- that's the price of free enterprise.

It's also the core of free enterprrise: Anything I own, I should be able to sell. Why can't I?

And how can there be no coersion in this system when you yourself in this thread have tried (poorly and unsuccessfully) to coerce me to accept it as moral?

Tell me, in dollar terms,what's the cost.

The cost of a human organ. The government now cannot legalize their sale because they would lose their claim to them.

Heck, tell me in CHOICE terms what's the cost. There is none. You are in EXACTLY the same position before and after; you have just as much choice and you have just as much control over your body and organs.

Does the government have a right to take parts of my body without me telling them they can? Yes or no.

If yes, by what right do they have to my body?

Except rape has lasting after effects. Harvesting dead peoples organs don't. Analogy fail.

If there's no after effects, then why harvest them? Criticism fail.

Pft. I've explained myself perfectly. Zero cost, high benefit. You have yet to point to a SINGLE cost. You have the SAME amount of chocie as before. There is NO loss of freedom. If this system was MANDATORY without an opt out then you would have a point. As is, you have no point, and you haven't expressed one.

You haven't been paying attention, nor do I expect you to -- just another case of "the ends justifying the means."

Tell me what else the government can assume it can take from you if it would benefit someone else?

What do you mean human dignity? Humans have dignity, and they have choice. They have the same amount of both under opt out or opt in.

No, they don't. In an opt-in scenario, the human dignity that they may assert ownership over their own bodies is a given.

In Opt-out, that dignity is not assumed to be there. A person must actively assert it -- and the whole point is that enough people won't do so to make a difference.

(which makes the choice to field-test this in Colorado somewhat odd, considering that 2/3 of residents have already voluntarily registered as organ donors)

Because selling of organs leads to exploitative markets in organs.

The selling of anything leads to a competitive market in anything.

I still assert my capitalist right to sell that which I legally own -- assuming, of course, I still legally own my own body?

They have NO authority over your body in the proposed system.

They do if for whatever reason my wishes aren't made abundantly clear to them, or if those wishes get lost in the shuffle.

Can you guarantee a system without corruption?

Again, possession is determined by two things

1)Physical Control
2)Ability to exclude

Both of which the government is assuming I'm handing over to them -- I've very much like to know on what basis -- besides their own necessity -- they're making that assumption.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yep. Which is why I would support mandatory organ donation for all. No paperwork required!

Of course, I know that would never fly. So there will have to be a way for opting for the non-default position. Paperwork will be involved.

So with that starting point, I weight the amount of paperwork against the good done. Now, all things being equal relating to paperwork, having more organs available does more good and saves more lives than having fewer organs available. The opt-out program would provide more organs and save more lives for the same amount of paperwork than an opt-in program.

We could add this to the Colorado program -- what about prisoners? Death Row inmates, guys serving multiple consecutive life sentences... these men still have a debt to society to pay; why should they be allowed to opt out?

Speaking of debt, how about people who owe back taxes? Surely the government should be allowed to extract its pound of flesh -- one way or another.

 

[DeathMagus]

We could add this to the Colorado program -- what about prisoners? Death Row inmates, guys serving multiple consecutive life sentences... these men still have a debt to society to pay; why should they be allowed to opt out?

Speaking of debt, how about people who owe back taxes? Surely the government should be allowed to extract its pound of flesh -- one way or another.

Come on, Nathan - don't undermine your position with a pair of slippery slopes.

 

[Drekkan85]

Any buyer/seller relationship has the potential for coercion and other problems -- that's the price of free enterprise.

It's also the core of free enterprrise: Anything I own, I should be able to sell. Why can't I?

And how can there be no coersion in this system when you yourself in this thread have tried (poorly and unsuccessfully) to coerce me to accept it as moral?

Except here we have life and death consequences. Furthermore, beyond simple coercion we have simple concepts of equality - the rich should not be further ahead in the line purely because of their pocket books. A market system could slump those that have no money to afford an organ to the back of a list in perpetuity. <STAFF EDIT>

The cost of a human organ. The government now cannot legalize their sale because they would lose their claim to them.

The government, per say, has no claim. It's society that has the claim, and the common system the organs go into. And the reference to cost is the cost of the proposed system. What's the cost of making it default opt-out?

Does the government have a right to take parts of my body without me telling them they can? Yes or no.

You get the final choice about organ donation... in either system. It's a draw.

You're wrong.

If yes, by what right do they have to my body?

On the basis that they tell you "Will you donate your organs, be aware that a non-answer is a yes" and then you choose to answer either yes or not at all. You've given them the choice.

If there's no after effects, then why harvest them? Criticism fail.

<STAFF EDIT> There's no lasting after effects on the dead body... why? Because it's dead. This is different because there ARE lasting negative effects on the rape victim.

You haven't been paying attention, nor do I expect you to -- just another case of "the ends justifying the means."

Tell me what else the government can assume it can take from you if it would benefit someone else?

Assuming that they did all the taking posthumously, and they always only took the items AFTER giving me a choice about whether or not I wanted to give it away... yup. No problems. I STILL have the choice.

No, they don't. In an opt-in scenario, the human dignity that they may assert ownership over their own bodies is a given.

In Opt-out, that dignity is not assumed to be there. A person must actively assert it -- and the whole point is that enough people won't do so to make a difference.

The default doesn't matter as long as it is a free choice without consequence on the chooser.

The important thing is that there is a choice. The choice is the only thing that matters. The choice is the ability to exclude that determines possession.

The selling of anything leads to a competitive market in anything.

I still assert my capitalist right to sell that which I legally own -- assuming, of course, I still legally own my own body?

Because the government has recognized the inherent coercion that would be present in an organ selling system and the inequality in access to life saving techniques and procedures that would result. As a result, they've banned the selling of the organs.

They do if for whatever reason my wishes aren't made abundantly clear to them, or if those wishes get lost in the shuffle.

Can you guarantee a system without corruption?

Because, as skaloop has pointed out, once the opt out system has occurred, there's no incentive to push the envelope to solve a shortage that would no longer exist.

Can you guarantee a system that would "lose the paperwork"?

Both of which the government is assuming I'm handing over to them -- I've very much like to know on what basis -- besides their own necessity -- they're making that assumption.

You're not handing over EITHER to them.

1) Phsyical control. The government can't, at any time, simply reach into your body. They can't come by while you're at dinner and grab 'em. You have physical control.

2) Ability to exclude others. Government can't do that either. Government can only take them when you've given consent by NOT filling out the forms required to not be a donor.

It's the same situation as before except you've added "not" in part 2 in two separate places.

The choice is the only thing that matters. The choice has equal impact, and guarantees equal control over your body no matter the default.

 

[Drekkan85]

Strained analogy but let's take it a step further. Your food doesn't necessarily go to the starving but to a rich obese person who just doesn't have any fast food and greatly needs fast food. He might gulp it down without thinking and need new fast food before you know it meanwhile you are out what you paid for the fast food and if you are poor you weren't able to sell your fast food to someone and give the money to your starving family.

The "starving" here aren't the poor. They're those that are in need of an organ or they die. Rich or poor, everyone has the same need for organs when their own are failing.

On a more realistic note, one of your arguments seems to be that the government has made it so inconvenient to donate organs by requiring mountains of paperwork that the government must intervene and make it inconvenient to not donate organs by requiring mountains of paperwork. Wouldn't it be easier to do away with the mountains of paperwork?

Which is why people who are ambivalent currenlty are NOT donating, but in the proposed system WOULD donate.

 

[Skaloop]

We could add this to the Colorado program -- what about prisoners? Death Row inmates, guys serving multiple consecutive life sentences... these men still have a debt to society to pay; why should they be allowed to opt out?

Because as you have said numerous times, they have a say in what happens to their bodies upon their death.

Speaking of debt, how about people who owe back taxes? Surely the government should be allowed to extract its pound of flesh -- one way or another.

I'm not talking about anyone "owing" anything to the government or the public, be it debt to society for prisoners or back taxes for other people. Nobody owes their organs to anyone in concrete terms, only in a moral/ethical sort of way by helping out your fellow man. I'd like for everyone to donate, but I don't think it's something they owe.

I'd also like to address points about corruption leading to unscrupulous doctors either harvesting organs from people who opted-out, or not trying their hardest to save someone so that they can harvest the organs. For starters, that corruption is already there under the current system, primarily because of a severe shortage of organs. Under an opt-out system, that shortage will not be as severe. There will probably still be a shortage, but it won't be as bad, so more people will be saved sooner, partially eliminating the urgent need for an organ.

Secondly, there seems to be a bit of a paradox in the idea that doctors don't care about patients and will let them die in order to harvest their organs compared to the idea that doctors care so much about patients that they will let others die in order to get donor organs for them.

That sort of thing should definitely be closely monitored and scrutinized under any organ donor system, so I don't see how it is a negative aspect exclusive to an opt-out system.

 

[Drekkan85]

To simplify - look at the proposed system.

Anyone that has a colorado ID card or driver's license will be presumed to be a donor unless they check a box when they get the card saying otherwise.

There you go. It's not a "hidden option". They're not backdooring people. You'll always see the box, and have the chance to check it.

It comes down to one simple thing - if you have a choice, then you have control. It doesn't matter what the default is.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Come on, Nathan - don't undermine your position with a pair of slippery slopes.

Guess I should've added the winking smiley to the post.

But I'm still wondering why my government thinks I want to hand over my body to it by default.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Except here we have life and death consequences.

So what?

Furthermore, beyond simple coercion we have simple concepts of equality - the rich should not be further ahead in the line purely because of their pocket books.

Rich people already get better medical attention than poor people because of their pocket books -- that's one of the many incentives to be rich.

Besides, the market will correct itself -- supply and demand.

A market system could slump those that have no money to afford an organ to the back of a list in perpetuity.

That sounds almost as unconscionable as the rich people having private doctors and poor people being relegated to the free clinic -- whoops, my bad; that's the way it is now.

You said before you dealt in reality, not ideologies -- well, here's reality for you: The rich get better treatment than the poor.

I've tried to coerce you to accept it as moral? [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]? I've not coerced you at all. I've merely pointed out your obstinate idiocy.

No, you didn't -- which is why I labeled your attempt as "poor and unsucessful."

The government, per say, has no claim. It's society that has the claim, and the common system the organs go into.

And who runs and enforces the system?

And the reference to cost is the cost of the proposed system. What's the cost of making it default opt-out?

This is about something greater than money -- it's about a person kowing that their government doesn't see them as parts for their use.

You get the final choice about organ donation... in either system. It's a draw.

I have a right to the first choice. It is my body we're talking about, not theirs.

You're wrong.

They still think they can take my organs -- they're waiting for me to tell them they can't, and hoping I'm too lazy/apathetic to do so.

Most governments/religions/social systems prey on the stupidity/laziness/gullibility of the common people -- I, for one, thnk they deserve better.

On the basis that they tell you "Will you donate your organs, be aware that a non-answer is a yes" and then you choose to answer either yes or not at all. You've given them the choice.

Seems to me that when the question is "Can we take __________ that belongs to you?" A non-answer should always be construed as no.

Comprehension fail (wow, you're bad at this). There's no lasting after effects on the dead body... why? Because it's dead. This is different because there ARE lasting negative effects on the rape victim.

Then why is necrophilia a crime? Surely there are lasting effects on someone...

Assuming that they did all the taking posthumously, and they always only took the items AFTER giving me a choice about whether or not I wanted to give it away... yup. No problems. I STILL have the choice.

You might want to check your country's laws -- who knows what they'll take from you after you're dead.

Remember -- they're counting on you to be both ignorant and apathetic.

The default doesn't matter as long as it is a free choice without consequence on the chooser.
The important thing is that there is a choice. The choice is the only thing that matters. The choice is the ability to exclude that determines possession.

And I say the default matters on a philosophical level -- that the government would even assume my consent for a moment without the common decency of asking (I've noticed you're not using that phrase anymore -- how odd) is immoral and frankly, insulting.

Because the government has recognized the inherent coercion that would be present in an organ selling system and the inequality in access to life saving techniques and procedures that would result. As a result, they've banned the selling of the organs.

There already is inequality in access to life saving techniques -- the rich get the best that money can buy, the poor make do.

This is the unpleasant reality that you claimed to live in.

Because, as skaloop has pointed out, once the opt out system has occurred, there's no incentive to push the envelope to solve a shortage that would no longer exist.

And Skaloop made very valid points on a pragmatic level. I'm still looking at the underlying philosophy of the thing.

Can you guarantee a system that would "lose the paperwork"?

No, but you can -- you deal in realities, remember? Greed, apathy, sloth... and corruption.

You're not handing over EITHER to them.

No, I'm not, but they're assuming that I am -- only my constant assertion as to the ownership of my own body stops them.

1) Phsyical control. The government can't, at any time, simply reach into your body. They can't come by while you're at dinner and grab 'em. You have physical control.

I won't be at dinner when I'm dead.

2) Ability to exclude others. Government can't do that either. Government can only take them when you've given consent by NOT filling out the forms required to not be a donor.

Why then is my body, upon death, being handed over to the state, and not my next of kin, as would be the case with anything else I own? When did I tell them they cold do that?

Answer: never. Laws already exist to provide for the transfer of ownership of everything else I posess upon my death... except my body. I see an issue there.

It's the same situation as before except you've added "not" in part 2 in two separate places.

It's the same, except it's not -- that makes sense.

The choice is the only thing that matters. The choice has equal impact, and guarantees equal control over your body no matter the default.

You keep saying that -- but I say that what also matters are the fundamental assumptions going into that choice, particularly, whether or not I would, by default, wish to serve a collective society, or whether or not that society should serve me.

 

[Nathan Poe]

The "starving" here aren't the poor. They're those that are in need of an organ or they die. Rich or poor, everyone has the same need for organs when their own are failing.

The same need, but not the same access -- just like anything else.

 

[Drekkan85]

Whew, a lot of rancour and hostile language in this thread.

Let me be the first to say that I was in the wrong about using the language I used. Frustrating times in general.

But it comes down to a fundamental disagreement that we will never get over - you see something philosophical here, I don't. I see one thing and one thing alone that matters - your ability to choose remains; to me the default doesn't matter (especially since you don't have to constantly remind them otherwise, you do so once when you get your license/ID and never have to worry about it again unless you wish to change your choice).

That's what this comes down to; I only care about the practical effects as long as it causes no harm to anyone else - Pareto efficiency. You care about a philosophical point that, in my mind, is irrelevant.

***
ETA: I also think the fact that you DO grant different levels of care for health care to be wrong - it's why I'm a supporter of our national health care system on this side of the border.

 

[Skaloop]

Guess I should've added the winking smiley to the post.

But I'm still wondering why my government thinks I want to hand over my body to it by default.

How do you feel about thinks like mandatory autopsies when death is suspicious? In that, there isn't even an opt-out process. The government can cut you up any which way from Sunday to determine cause of death and launch a criminal investigation. I guess they are going with the default position that you want your killer found and brought to justice.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Whew, a lot of rancour and hostile language in this thread.

Let me be the first to say that I was in the wrong about using the language I used. Frustrating times in general.

Agreed -- tempers have run high over what really amounts to a trivial difference.

One that, it seems, has just become moot:

Colo. legislator dropping organ-donor proposal - Yahoo! News

Democratic Sen. Lucia Guzman told Denver's KUSA-TV that she is dropping her proposal that the state change to a "presumed consent" system.
That system automatically classifies all applicants for driver's licenses and state ID cards as organ and tissue donors unless they opt out. Such donations are used in several European countries but have raised ethical concerns in the U.S.
The Colorado proposal was introduced last week and sparked fears and opposition from many.
Supporters say they will drop the proposal for now.

Looks like we were getting worked up over nothing.

But it comes down to a fundamental disagreement that we will never get over - you see something philosophical here, I don't. I see one thing and one thing alone that matters - your ability to choose remains; to me the default doesn't matter (especially since you don't have to constantly remind them otherwise, you do so once when you get your license/ID and never have to worry about it again unless you wish to change your choice).

That's what this comes down to; I only care about the practical effects as long as it causes no harm to anyone else - Pareto efficiency. You care about a philosophical point that, in my mind, is irrelevant.

It's one of the most fundamental issues of private property -- what's mine is mine. If you want it, all you have to do is ask.

I find it presumptuous when people just assume I want them to have my things -- and I get very concerned when governments get presumptuous.

***
ETA: I also think the fact that you DO grant different levels of care for health care to be wrong - it's why I'm a supporter of our national health care system on this side of the border.

I'm actually in favor of that, myself -- but this was putting the cart before the horse. The living come before the dead.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How do you feel about thinks like mandatory autopsies when death is suspicious? In that, there isn't even an opt-out process. The government can cut you up any which way from Sunday to determine cause of death and launch a criminal investigation. I guess they are going with the default position that you want your killer found and brought to justice.

If I am robbed, the police will also assume that if found, I would want my things returned to me. Law enforcement is one of the few essential government services that we pay for via taxes -- it would be absurd for the government to assume that I don't want to get my money's worth if I should be a victim of a crime.

And even if I didn't want my killer brought to justice, the state still does -- such an individual is a threat to the entire community, and the community has a pretty solid interest in finding the individual. If, for whatever reason, my next of kin were to refuse to allow an autopsy, they'd need a pretty compelling argument in order for a judge to deny a warrant.

But you do raise a valid point.

 

[DeathMagus]

Nathan - I can see your point if the process for opting out were some monumental, coercive-ly difficult process, designed to wear people down and, eventually, force many to simply give in and allow their organs to be used.

If it's no more difficult than the current opt-in process is (at least in my state), then your opposition seems far more academic than actually applicable to reality.

 

[grasping the after wind]

The "starving" here aren't the poor. They're those that are in need of an organ or they die. Rich or poor, everyone has the same need for organs when their own are failing.

Do you always equate a need for something as a right to posses that thing? Even if the thing belongs to someone else? And why should the government be allowed to decide that someone else no longer needs that thing and assume that it can then transfer possession to the one it has determined is most in need of it? Of course, that would be quite normal for a socialist system, but Colorado has not come out and claimed that it is a socialist state as far as I know.

Which is why people who are ambivalent currenlty are NOT donating, but in the proposed system WOULD donate.

No, they would not donate they would either affirm their right of ownership or allow their organs to be harvested. DONATION IS NOT PASSIVE. Giving is a verb as is donate you must have heard that verbs are action words you cannot perform an action by not doing something.

 

[Supreme]

I think Colaradons are missing out seeing as this law is being dropped. Organ donations can save thousands of lives a year, and I'd love to know that I'd be helping people even from beyond the grave. It should be law in most places.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan - I can see your point if the process for opting out were some monumental, coercive-ly difficult process, designed to wear people down and, eventually, force many to simply give in and allow their organs to be used.

If it's no more difficult than the current opt-in process is (at least in my state), then your opposition seems far more academic than actually applicable to reality.

I agree -- my opposition has been mainly philosophical and academic. And in all honesty, I thinking along the lines of the slippery slope -- give the government an inch, and they'll take a yard... then raise your taxes to pay the salary of the yard-takers.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I think Colaradons are missing out seeing as this law is being dropped. Organ donations can save thousands of lives a year, and I'd love to know that I'd be helping people even from beyond the grave. It should be law in most places.

They're not really missing out on much -- 2/3 of Coloradans are already organ doners. It's the largest ratio in the country, IIRC, and why it was chosen to test the idea, which had already been rejected in at least 2 other states.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I think Colaradons are missing out seeing as this law is being dropped. Organ donations can save thousands of lives a year, and I'd love to know that I'd be helping people even from beyond the grave. It should be law in most places.

Since you don't insist that it should be a law everywhere, perhaps Colorado is one of the few places you might allow to not have it be law.
There is nothing standing in the way of Colorado residents donating their organs so how are they missing out? Do you think that there must be a law for every facet of human existence, or is it possible that individuals can make decisions about their personal behavior without the input of government?