Bill would make Coloradans organ donors by default

[Nathan Poe]

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.

I think my original objection was partially due to the language involved more than anything else.

I agree, "donation" is an active, not a passive act -- but of course, an "organ surrender" or "organ forfeit" program is just way too Orwellian.

 

[Supreme]

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.

I wasn't aware of the high rate of organ donations in Colarado, but the more organs donated, the more lives saved in that state. It should become law if the donation of organs is very low.

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?

They are missing out because organ transplant lists are long and thousands of people sie annually by having a malfunctioning organ. In many cases, these faulty organs can be replaced by donor organs, and therefore lives can be saves (with the complementary immunosuppressant drugs, of course).

And no, I don't think laws should dictate every facet of human existence, and people can (for some reason beyond my rational comprehension) choose to opt out. You're simply changing the default status, and it's hardly going to be at much inconvenience to many people- well, no more inconvenience than the current default of not giving your organs away after death, anyway.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I wasn't aware of the high rate of organ donations in Colarado, but the more organs donated, the more lives saved in that state. It should become law if the donation of organs is very low.


They are missing out because organ transplant lists are long and thousands of people sie annually by having a malfunctioning organ. In many cases, these faulty organs can be replaced by donor organs, and therefore lives can be saves (with the complementary immunosuppressant drugs, of course).

And no, I don't think laws should dictate every facet of human existence, and people can (for some reason beyond my rational comprehension) choose to opt out. You're simply changing the default status, and it's hardly going to be at much inconvenience to many people- well, no more inconvenience than the current default of not giving your organs away after death, anyway.

It seems the reasoning behind this type of law is that there aren't enough organs available to fulfill the need. For some reason, the government insists that organs must be donated and cannot be purchased even though all other medical procedures, equipment, drugs, etc. without exception are allowed to be obtained through purchase. The shortage of organs could be eliminated through a purchase agreement which one enters into prior to death with the purchase price paid to the heirs of the seller. This seems a reasonable way to obtain the necessary organs. If the organs are not needed or are not appropriate for use the agreement is voided. I believe that such an agreement could be structured to address any possible concerns that people may have about coercion or taking advantage of the poor etc. What would be the objections to it?

 

[Nathan Poe]

It seems the reasoning behind this type of law is that there aren't enough organs available to fulfill the need. For some reason, the government insists that organs must be donated and cannot be purchased even though all other medical procedures, equipment, drugs, etc. without exception are allowed to be obtained through purchase. The shortage of organs could be eliminated through a purchase agreement which one enters into prior to death with the purchase price paid to the heirs of the seller. This seems a reasonable way to obtain the necessary organs. If the organs are not needed or are not appropriate for use the agreement is voided. I believe that such an agreement could be structured to address any possible concerns that people may have about coercion or taking advantage of the poor etc. What would be the objections to it?

It does seem odd for the government to outlaw the selling of organs out of one side of its mouth and on the other side, assume, by default, that we all just want to give them away.

 

[DeathMagus]

It seems the reasoning behind this type of law is that there aren't enough organs available to fulfill the need. For some reason, the government insists that organs must be donated and cannot be purchased even though all other medical procedures, equipment, drugs, etc. without exception are allowed to be obtained through purchase. The shortage of organs could be eliminated through a purchase agreement which one enters into prior to death with the purchase price paid to the heirs of the seller. This seems a reasonable way to obtain the necessary organs. If the organs are not needed or are not appropriate for use the agreement is voided. I believe that such an agreement could be structured to address any possible concerns that people may have about coercion or taking advantage of the poor etc. What would be the objections to it?

Would that actually solve our current problem, or would it serve to replace it with a problem of people not being able to afford both the cost of the organ and the procedure to transplant it? The reason organs are treated differently than other medical supplies is likely because most people find it tacky to haggle over the value of body parts. It's somewhat akin to trying to put a price on a human being (or in this case, their organs). Nobody wanted to do it, so the majority agreed to simply not do it at all.

It does seem odd for the government to outlaw the selling of organs out of one side of its mouth and on the other side, assume, by default, that we all just want to give them away.

Is it that odd? It's not unreasonable to conclude that if one cannot legally sell one's organs, that one would not be opposed to giving away one's (now worthless) organs upon no longer having a need for them.

 

[Supreme]

It seems the reasoning behind this type of law is that there aren't enough organs available to fulfill the need. For some reason, the government insists that organs must be donated and cannot be purchased even though all other medical procedures, equipment, drugs, etc. without exception are allowed to be obtained through purchase. The shortage of organs could be eliminated through a purchase agreement which one enters into prior to death with the purchase price paid to the heirs of the seller. This seems a reasonable way to obtain the necessary organs. If the organs are not needed or are not appropriate for use the agreement is voided. I believe that such an agreement could be structured to address any possible concerns that people may have about coercion or taking advantage of the poor etc. What would be the objections to it?

Actually, that reasoning demonstrates perfectly why the government needs to get involved with organ donations. If they don't, then the poor will be at an immediate disadvantage. One should not live or die based on their wealth.

I honestly can't see any such measure ever being popular. My faith in humanity is reduced every time I see arguments such as this- lives are given value by money. Nope. That's not how it should work. Life is a right, not a privelege- people shouldn't be turned down due to how rich or poor they are.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Is it that odd? It's not unreasonable to conclude that if one cannot legally sell one's organs, that one would not be opposed to giving away one's (now worthless) organs upon no longer having a need for them.

Except that the only reason they're "worthless" is that the people who want us to give them away (who want that to be the default) have arbitrarily decreed that they are "worthless."

The reality of economics is that an item is "worth" whatever price you can get for it.

 

[DeathMagus]

Except that the only reason they're "worthless" is that the people who want us to give them away (who want that to be the default) have arbitrarily decreed that they are "worthless."

The reality of economics is that an item is "worth" whatever price you can get for it.

Exactly - to any law-abiding citizen, the law makes the organs worth effectively nothing. It's a simple example of the government using legislation to manipulate economic reality - ostensibly for the good of society.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly - to any law-abiding citizen, the law makes the organs worth effectively nothing. It's a simple example of the government using legislation to manipulate economic reality - ostensibly for the good of society.

And then quietly assume a "default" position in which they benefit.

 

[Drekkan85]

And then quietly assume a "default" position in which they benefit.

I'd challenge that they "benefit". The government isn't the recipient of any organs. The benefit is gained by the recipients of the organs, the members of society.

I'd also say this wasn't being done quietly...

 

[Skaloop]

And then quietly assume a "default" position in which they benefit.

How exactly does the government itself benefit? Are they selling the organs? Not that I am aware of. They are merely making them available for transplant. They don't get any money, and they don't get the organs. So what is their benefit?

The only people getting any benefit are the people that would die without an organ transplant.

 

[grasping the after wind]

How exactly does the government itself benefit? Are they selling the organs? Not that I am aware of. They are merely making them available for transplant. They don't get any money, and they don't get the organs. So what is their benefit?

The only people getting any benefit are the people that would die without an organ transplant.

Since the government subsidizes medical care for the poor (Medicaid) and retired (Medicare) there is a financial benefit to the government for outlawing the sale of organs. Since the government already foots the bill for the poor, there is no way that they would be priced out of the ability to have use of the organs that are acquired through purchase. Is there any reality based objection to what I proposed?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Exactly - to any law-abiding citizen, the law makes the organs worth effectively nothing.

Of which there are none...

For example, this week I found out that all church bake sales are illegal, all providing of food for transactions of any form in which you have not purchased a permit to do so is illegal. Even the one's who work for the state department of health will attend these events and ignore the laws, in fact most people don't think it should be illegal. But it remains so (partly because there is such lax enforcement of the law).

You will find very few people who will obey the law just because it is the law. Perhaps they do it to avoid punishment, but all punishment is is a really high cost. That organ you just bought cost you $XXXXX and a chance of spending X years in jail. They do not make it effectively nothing, they raise the price till almost no one can afford it. Of course, because jail time is paid via time and not money, this is one price that actually is based on your earning potential (not to mention sentimental value such as time spent with family).

Due to the nature of the good in question though, there are people who are willing to spend a lot to get it (some people will do anything to live longer). As such, raising the price this high opens up a very dangerous black market (other people will do almost anything to get money from the first people), albeit the size is somewhat limited.

 

[DeathMagus]

Of which there are none...

For example, this week I found out that all church bake sales are illegal, all providing of food for transactions of any form in which you have not purchased a permit to do so is illegal. Even the one's who work for the state department of health will attend these events and ignore the laws, in fact most people don't think it should be illegal. But it remains so (partly because there is such lax enforcement of the law).

You will find very few people who will obey the law just because it is the law. Perhaps they do it to avoid punishment, but all punishment is is a really high cost. That organ you just bought cost you $XXXXX and a chance of spending X years in jail. They do not make it effectively nothing, they raise the price till almost no one can afford it. Of course, because jail time is paid via time and not money, this is one price that actually is based on your earning potential (not to mention sentimental value such as time spent with family).

Due to the nature of the good in question though, there are people who are willing to spend a lot to get it (some people will do anything to live longer). As such, raising the price this high opens up a very dangerous black market (other people will do almost anything to get money from the first people), albeit the size is somewhat limited.

Well, yes - we're a nation of criminals. That really is beside the point, however, unless you're going to put an illegal bake sale on equal footing with selling organs on the black market.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well, yes - we're a nation of criminals. That really is beside the point, however, unless you're going to put an illegal bake sale on equal footing with selling organs on the black market.

Since there is no good reason for either to be illegal there is a similarity. There would be no black market on organs if not for the fact that the government insists on making it illegal to sell organs. Wouldn't it be wiser to decriminalize and regulate sales of organs? Among other things.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, yes - we're a nation of criminals. That really is beside the point, however, unless you're going to put an illegal bake sale on equal footing with selling organs on the black market.

Not that much different... one is 'grosser', but if an individual consents to doing such, why not?

Of course, stealing organs and such things are far worse than either of these.