France Begins Opt-Out Organ Donation (theoutline.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

France Begins Opt-Out Organ Donation (theoutline.com)

Posted by msmash on Monday January 2, 2017 @08:00AM from the interesting-moves dept.

Laura June, reporting for The Outline: France began to use a new opt-out system of organ donation on Jan. 1, making it one of a large number of European nations that now use a "presumed consent" system. This means that any adult who dies will now donate their organs by default, regardless of their survivors' wishes, unless they have signed a refusal registry in advance. The new law gets around what has historically been a stumbling block for organ donation: the surviving families of the deceased. A survey in France previously showed that while up to 80 percent of the population was in favor of donating their own organs, about 40 percent of families refuse when pressed to make the choice.

48 of 445 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

AC begins opt out first post donation by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-02 08:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Click here to opt out.
NIMBY in full effect by Opportunist · 2017-01-02 08:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sure I'm for donations, they might save my life!
But I'd want to receive, not give!

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
1. Re:NIMBY in full effect by jedidiah · 2017-01-02 08:17 · Score: 2
  
  ...assuming you don't get organs from a guy like me. You don't always want to receive. Sometimes you have no idea where it's been.
  
  --
  A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
2. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ChromeAeonium · 2017-01-02 08:25 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I think they should be tied together. Unless you have some sort actual medical reason as to why you should not be an organ donor (HIV infection, ect.) opting out should put you on the bottom of the donation list should you need it. If you contribute to the system, you get priority if you need the system. Otherwise, you go to the back of the line. Don't expect to receive if you're not willing to give.
  I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you? It's one last act of good that could save lives and, seeing as how you're never going to use them again, costs you absolutely nothing. How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?
3. Re:NIMBY in full effect by mysidia · 2017-01-02 08:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you?
  The concern is not "If you're dead". The concern is, If i'm in critical condition, the hospital that knows I'm a potential organ donor
  may treat me differently in a manner that makes me less likely to survive, Or they may prematurely declare me dead out of concern for
  the organs they could get from me to save someone else..... perhaps someone they deem "More worthy" of being saved.
4. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ooloorie · 2017-01-02 08:41 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think they should be tied together.
  That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate, and they know it long ahead of time.
  
  I just don't get the mentality of people who refuse organ donation. If you're dead, you're dead, why take other people with you?
  Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.
  
  How big of a prick do you have to be to look at that proposition and reject it?
  I should say not as big of a prick as you, who is ready to attribute base motives to everybody at the drop of a pin.
5. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-02 08:41 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Which is an issue that an opt out system mitigates nicely. The more donors there are, the less likelihood of unethical behavior.
6. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Khashishi · 2017-01-02 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  The problem with selling your organs when you die is that you will now have strong incentives to kill yourself if your family needs the money.
7. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-02 08:49 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  What I want to ensure is that doctors are fully incentivized to keep me alive, and never incentivized not to for the sake of organ donations. The only safe way to do that is to opt out.
8. Re:NIMBY in full effect by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-02 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  I can see the logic in preferring people who donate, but if you go down that route you have to start thinking about people who smoke and destroy their lungs, or drink and wreck their liver, or get a sports injury that writes off a kidney...
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
9. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ShanghaiBill · 2017-01-02 09:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The fact is in an ER you don't necessarily get the opportunity to have a 2nd opinion about you being pronounced legally dead.
  If you are that far gone, you are likely better off dead anyway. It is a common scene in movies for the hero to flat-line, be revived with CPR and/or defib, and then be running, jumping and doing gymnastics a few minutes later. That is BS. Most people given CPR/defib don't survive or only survive for a few miserable hours or days, and even those that last longer usually have a very poor quality of life. They often are confined to bed or a wheelchair and often suffer brain damage.
  People that work in ERs, or once worked there, are the most likely to ask for "Do Not Resuscitate" or DNR orders when they are hospitalized.
10. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Shane_Optima · 2017-01-02 09:15 · Score: 2
  
  That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate...
  Err, if you have a bad heart, why must it follow that you have bad kidneys, corneas, skin, liver, etc?
  
  ...and they know it long ahead of time.
  Even if true (do most of them know prior to the age of 18?), this seems irrelevant. The idea that you are pushed below organ donors on the recipient list if you've opted out of organ donation in the past X months (to prevent people from simply switching the moment they learn they need a transplant) is entirely sensible and entirely fair. Whether or not your condition is detectable far in advance and how long you've been on the waiting list is really beside the point.
  
  Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.
  But that's the only reasonable reason, and it's questionable how big of a concern it will be in an opt-out situation wherein the large majority of the population are organ donors. It's also questionable how big of a concern it is in any country with strong anti-malpractice liability law.
  
  All other reasons are just sentimental and religious. People should still have a right to opt out for those reasons, but that doesn't mean exercising that right comes without consequences.
  
  ready to attribute base motives to everybody at the drop of a pin.
  Motivation is irrelevant. Regardless of the reasonableness of opting out of organ donation, it does not make it any less reasonable to insist that those who opt-in (or in the case of France, do not opt out) receive preferential treatment, except in the cases of minors whose parents have opted them out.
  
  Arguing otherwise is akin to arguing that fire insurance companies should pay when anyone's house burns down, without regard to whether or not they've actually paid their premiums. You're arguing for something that will make the world a worse place.
11. Re:NIMBY in full effect by hey! · 2017-01-02 09:20 · Score: 2
  
  Technically you don't give anything when organs are harvested from your corpse. Even calling it "your" corpse is begging the question.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
12. Re:NIMBY in full effect by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-01-02 09:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  This exactly. I am all for organ donation, but the problem is that it is a statistically proven fact that organ donors don't get worked on as long as non-donors with the exact same injury, especially those involved in violence, such as car accidents, gun shots and other traumatic injury. I used to be an organ donor on my drivers license, now I am not on my license. I have told my family that if I am really dead and the opportunity to donate is there, I would like them to do it, but I want the doctors focused on saving my life, not thinking about the potential of my harvest-able organs.
  I think that a lot of people are like me especially after doing a bit of research, and the best way to get around this issue is to have medical/religious only opt out (i.e. AIDS etc), where doctors, nurses, EMTs etc can't pronounce without a second opinion. To pronounce you it takes one MD who has not worked on you to come in with fresh eyes and make sure you are actually dead with no chance of coming back, if there is any question his job is to tell them to keep working on you. Part of the organ donor system should also keep track of the number of donors vs patients vs time they try to save you vs criticality of injury on a per doctor and per hospital basis. Doctors that are shortcuting to get more donors instead of saving their patients can be screened for and dealt with. The benefits are two fold. First, with opt out, it reduces the strain by making a lot more donors available, and second, it reduces the strain on families having to try and guess if the doctor has actually done everything possible before coming out and asking for donation.
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
13. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-02 09:30 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I'd rather them not turn me off prematurely just so they can steal my organs, thanks.
  Cases in point: http://legalpublication.blogsp...
  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/or...
  And here's the icing on the cake: http://www.melissacaulk.com/th...
  I'll just leave this here form the article:
  "In a shocking statement, Dr. Neil Lazar, Director of the Medical-Surgical Intensive Care unit at Toronto General Hospital, says the focus should be on the well-being of donors rather than whether they are legally dead. That could mean giving anesthetics during organ harvesting.
  He and his co-authors, Dr. Maxwell J. Smith of the University of Toronto, and David Rodriguez-Arias of Universidad del Pais Vasco in Spain, advocate replacing the current “dead-donor rule” with a policy that educates the public about the true nature of patients used in transplants, obtain informed consent from everyone — and ensure the donor does not suffer during the organ harvesting. The study was published in the American Journal of Bioethics.
  The authors state frankly that under current practices donors may be technically still alive when organs are harvested – a necessary condition to produce healthy, living organs. Because of this, they say that protocol requiring a donor’s death is “dangerously misleading,” and could overlook the well-being of the donor who may still be able to suffer during the harvesting procedure.
  All I know is that if I need anesthetics while they are ripping me apart, I might have a few concerns about whether I am dead or not.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
14. Re:NIMBY in full effect by ChromeAeonium · 2017-01-02 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  That's a useless suggestion: people who need organ donations are generally not suitable to donate, and they know it long ahead of time.
  Except in cases of injury, or where only one organ is the problem.
  
  Well, one reason is a concern that doctors and hospitals might be less interested in saving you if that means potentially damaging donatable organs. There are many other reasons as well.
  Considering that, far as I can tell anyway, virtually every medical organization on earth denies that happens, that seems an extremely unlikely and unreasonable concern. I would not be surprised if there were isolated incidents, but by that logic you should wear body armor in case someone stabs or shoots you. I think its much more reasonable to trust the opinions of major medical organizations than put stock in baseless fears pulled out the usual place.
15. Re:NIMBY in full effect by RackinFrackin · 2017-01-02 09:40 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly, the donation is a ripoff! The hospital using the organs makes a treasure chest full of money....My point is, the donor should receive a fair amount of money, say, $100k per organ harvested. It's a capitalist world, and you have pay the supplier of your goods.
  If the hospital had to pay for the organ, they'd turn around and charge the recipient, making an already horrible financial situation even worse.
16. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-01-02 09:46 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  The rules for Dead are pretty solid.
  When there's reports of people waking up in the morgue or, even worse, having the medical examiner realizing they're not quite dead yet when starting the autopsy, I think it's safe to say we're not terribly good at telling if somebody's dead even off the old rules--and the organs are mostly useless for donation once the person's reached the no-heartbeat flavor of dead. (I think there's a few things you can still use, and in fact harvest for a bit after that, but...)
  The problem is that we've got unfortunately good evidence that we are not as good as we need to be about telling if somebody's brain dead--which is what you want for organ donation--and there's been questions raised, including simply on the ethics side, of if a doctor who knows the patient is a donor will be as careful about making sure the person is brain dead as we need them to be. I know that in the US, currently the doctor is supposed to have no clue--until brain death is declared, nobody's supposed to even check--but how true that is...
  It doesn't help that, to put it bluntly, the hospital gets money even if you(r estate) doesn't.
  Anyway. Basically, the problem is that the ethics involved look pretty good, right up until you actually start looking, and people freak out about what may actually be the most ethical possible situation of having somebody asking for their ventilator to be switched off before they hit shut-in syndrome, and for it to be done at a hospital so their organs can be donate. Yes, you're turning off somebody's life support so you can harvest their organs--but you're not ever going to get any better consent, and as long as they've the right to ask for their life support to be turned off the choice ought to be theirs.
17. Re:NIMBY in full effect by AthanasiusKircher · 2017-01-02 10:03 · Score: 2
  
  I think its much more reasonable to trust the opinions of major medical organizations than put stock in baseless fears pulled out the usual place.
  You mean the same "major medical organizations" whose errors may be the 3rd leading cause of death in the U.S., amounting to roughly 250,000 deaths per year?
  Don't get me wrong: I agree with you to the extent that I think it's probably MUCH more likely that doctors are making errors rather than deliberately killing people or letting people die. But given how few actual errors are admitted by doctors, it's hard to put the word "trust" and "major medical organizations" in the same sentence. (And yeah, I get that the reason doctors aren't more forthcoming about errors has to do with a whole bunch of legal crap and a litigation-happy culture, but the fact is that there's a lot of times when the "opinions" of "major medical organizations" screw up.)
  Regardless, given the stats (which even more conservative estimates put at at least 100k deaths/year due to medical errors), I don't think it's a "baseless fear" to say that sometimes doctors may not necessarily make the best decisions for you.
18. Re:NIMBY in full effect by fahrbot-bot · 2017-01-02 10:33 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  People that work in ERs, or once worked there, are the most likely to ask for "Do Not Resuscitate" or DNR orders when they are hospitalized.
  When my wife Sue was diagnosed with fatal brain tumor the day before Thanksgiving 2005, she completed a health-care proxy (living will) stating that no extraordinary measures should be used and a DNR. When her brain stem was damaged six weeks later, she fell into a coma and I had the fun task of re-asserting her DNR. She died a week later on Jan 13, 2006. Sue was a teacher so, instead of donating her organs, she donated her body to science. She was only 61 (I was then 42) and in excellent health (other than the brain tumor) and most donors are much older and in poorer health, so the Virginia Anatomical Program was very happy to have her (so to speak).
  I have also completed a living will and healthcare proxy form and registered them with the U.S. Living Will Registry specifying no extraordinary measures and registered with the Virginia State Anatomical Program to have my body donated to science.
  
  --
  It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
19. Re:NIMBY in full effect by AmiMoJo · 2017-01-02 10:48 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Do you have a link to that data? A quick Google turned up nothing.
  Personally I'm more concerned with being kept alive too long. The last thing I want is to live in pain or unable to move.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
20. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Opportunist · 2017-01-02 11:05 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I could see that problem in the US, in France, there isn't really a financial incentive to the hospital to harvest body parts.
  Also, the stories about people waking in the morgue are lovely tales from the crypt, but have little to do with reality, and have not had for at least 100 years now.
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
21. Re: NIMBY in full effect by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2017-01-02 11:08 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  I know, I don't want to donate my organs
  Why not, what else will you be doing with them once you are dead ?
  Play with it. I was born playing with my organ, I've lived my whole life playing with it, and if death is as boring as life, I'll want to be able to play with it when I'm dead.
  
  --
  Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
22. Re:NIMBY in full effect by Cinnamon+Beige · 2017-01-02 12:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I could see that problem in the US, in France, there isn't really a financial incentive to the hospital to harvest body parts.
  Also, the stories about people waking in the morgue are lovely tales from the crypt, but have little to do with reality, and have not had for at least 100 years now.
  Nope, actually, it's just a lot rarer now--in the first world, anyway, and the general expectation now is that it means somebody botched their job. I think the last case was ~25 years ago, was a little old lady, and she was kicking around long enough afterwards to get interviewed. (I didn't catch much about the case, except apparently the fact that they put her in the freezer saved her life.)
  Incidentally, it's cases like that which get brought up when somebody suggests being less careful in checking.
  As for the issue with brain death--I think the paper discussing the problems getting noticed in correctly determining the amount of brain activity was published in 2015. I would very much enjoy reading it, but it's very much a current and ongoing problem in neuro.
  As for financial incentives in France--can't tell you, I don't read French and any reports that go into the inner workings of France's organ donation system are almost certainly going to be in French. I can, however, with great confidence state that both the US and France have them as being supposed to be donations--because both countries are in pretty explicit agreement on payments being unethical--meaning that no financial incentive should exist, period, in either country.
23. Re:NIMBY in full effect by quenda · 2017-01-02 14:11 · Score: 2
  
  I can see the logic in preferring people who donate, but if you go down that route you have to start thinking about people who smoke and destroy their lungs, or drink and wreck their liver
  We already do. Alcoholics don't get new livers. Smokers are pushed way down the list of transplant recipients for anything. You want a new kidney? Then stop smoking and lose weight if obese. We do not hold patients responsible for past sins, but we do for current ones.
  So by analogy, you would not consider how long someone had been on the organ donor list, just if they are on it at the time they find out they want to be a recipient.
24. Re:NIMBY in full effect by arglebargle_xiv · 2017-01-02 14:46 · Score: 2
  
  It's not necessarily NIMBY, it's just going with the default. When this was introduced in other countries, organ-donorship went from large-majority-don't to large-majority-do, with no change in people's attitudes. People just went with whatever was the default, so you may as well make the default option the better one.
25. Re:NIMBY in full effect by LeftCoastThinker · 2017-01-02 18:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I couldn't find the original journal article, but this WSJ article lays it out pretty clearly. The tests they use are from the 1960s and among other things, not checking for higher brain function with an EEG is a real problem for me.
  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
  An excerpt: " In a 1999 article in the peer-reviewed journal Anesthesiology, Gail A. Van Norman, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Washington, reported a case in which a 30-year-old patient with severe head trauma began breathing spontaneously after being declared brain dead. The physicians said that, because there was no chance of recovery, he could still be considered dead. The harvest proceeded over the objections of the anesthesiologist, who saw the donor move, and then react to the scalpel with hypertension."
  Those of you looking to avoid pain may not like it if you can feel yourself being slowly dissected...
  
  --
  If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
26. Re:NIMBY in full effect by shilly · 2017-01-03 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  Instead of shouting "pig" and "murder" like a dimwit who's never heard of the trolley car problem, you could on occasion try engaging what passes for your tiny mind in some actual hard thinking.
  Amazingly enough, the risk that patients might possibly be murdered is not in fact the only relevant consideration for the ethics of organ transplantation, a subject about which, I am fairly confident, I know a shit load more than you. For example, there is some moral weight to attach to all the people who will die if everyone is imbecilic enough not to allow their organs to be donated on account of the kind of hysteria you have so amply displayed.
Donate how much and for what purpose? by tgibson · 2017-01-02 08:16 · Score: 3, Informative

The assumption is that only vital organs needed to help a living, sick person survive are harvested. But is that the case? Does the system define which organs may be harvested and for what purpose? Can one's entire body be donated for the purpose of research or training? Is the system truly altruistic or are there people profiting from the practice? Who decided what the rules are?
1. Re:Donate how much and for what purpose? by gurps_npc · 2017-01-02 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  No one 'profits' from it, at least not direct monetary profit. Yes, some body make make money off of medical inventions developed using research done using these organs, but that is about it.
  Organ donation is very difficult, very expensive, and heavily regulated in all western countries. Hence the medical tourism to non-western countries.
  This will definitely save a lot of lives. In the US the wait for kidney donation (keep in mind that you can donate one of your two kidneys with minimal health issues) is often longer than the life expectancy of people that need a kidney.
  
  --
  excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
How about visitors? by johannesg · 2017-01-02 08:20 · Score: 2, Funny

If you die while on a visit to France, will the family receive a stripped body?
Re:Can you imagine by AutodidactLabrat · 2017-01-02 08:38 · Score: 2

Yep, that's a Holy Grail
but Americans won't be allowed to benefit
Because religitards have fits over the word "Clone" and that is what you are doing.
So, move to Korea now, live forever....though you might not want to
shades of Larry Niven's Known Space by kallen3 · 2017-01-02 08:51 · Score: 2

Wonder how long before some crimes will no longer carry the death penalty but organ donation penalty? No one was really executed just all of their organs donated, too bad they could not live without kidneys, liver, and both lungs. But hey they were not executed, meanwhile since they are suffering a major life ending trauma lets just grab that heart, too.
Re:Presumed consent by Shane_Optima · 2017-01-02 09:30 · Score: 2

This gets very, very tricky. I don't think presumed consent in this particular area bothers me per se, but I can imagine a lot of other issues where presumed consent would scare the living daylights out of me. Sounds like a very slippery slope.
I don't know...limiting implied consent to dead people feels like a pretty good firewall to me. Where do you imagine we could end up sliding to? (Talking about implied consent only, not other issues like doctors possibly being less than enthusiastic to save someone.)
huge organ by PopeRatzo · 2017-01-02 09:33 · Score: 3, Funny

You want my organ, come and get it.
https://lh3.googleusercontent....

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:no penalty if they ignore your opt-out by nospam007 · 2017-01-02 09:48 · Score: 2

"and then claim they assumed you had not opted out because they "couldn't find" an opt-out record for you?"
For the paranoids, I offer a 'Not an organ donor!" tattoo for your sternum for only $99.99
Re:Can I at least specify ... by Zocalo · 2017-01-02 09:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Whoever gets my liver also gets some fava beans and a nice chianti.

--
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
This is normal in Europe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-02 10:13 · Score: 2, Informative

I am actually amazed by the comments here.
I live in Austria and we have had opt out for a veeery long time and it is no issue at all.
We only use the nickname "organ donors" for motorbikers as a joke.
You can still choose not to donate and can communicate that intent in various ways(also informally).
Examples:
* register in a government database that is restricted to only this opt outs
* carry a signed piece of paper that says something like "i dont want to donate my organs"
* your family "testifies" that you wish your organs not to be donated
A few comments that i read here stated that people are concerned about doctors not helping a patient because his organs can be used as transplants.
There are two arguments that might help alleviate your concerns:
1: Because of the opt out system there are a lot of potential donors. This means there is no need to create artificial supply.
2: Patients are only considered for organ extraction if doctors determine through a fixed set of rules and procedures that they are brain dead.
Furthermore, the transplant receiver is determined by a waiting list created by fixed rules and managed by the independent non-profit Eurotransplant https://www.eurotransplant.org/.
1. Re:This is normal in Europe by fbobraga · 2017-01-03 00:26 · Score: 2
  
  here in Brazil too (I don't know the situation of the rest of Latin America, tough...): I think almost all of the "strange" comments comes from a single country (that thinks is going to be "great again"!)
Blatant violation of the individual's rights by Damouze · 2017-01-02 10:30 · Score: 2

Especially the right to the integrity of one's body.
Death has now become a taxable event and one's organs are the fee.

--
And on the Eighth Day, Man created God.
1. Re:Blatant violation of the individual's rights by SuricouRaven · 2017-01-02 11:48 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You can't call organs a fee when they have zero value to the donor, on account of the donor being dead. It's just taking from them something that they no longer have any use for, and giving it to someone who has a very dire need.
  If you have the ability to save the life of one person, possibly more, and you refuse to do so for no other reason than sentimental attachment or superstition, then you bear responsibility for the consequences of this inaction. So I am entirely wiling to see any number of corpses mangled in order to benefit those still alive. At the end of the day, they are just bags of spare parts.
2. Re:Blatant violation of the individual's rights by The-Ixian · 2017-01-03 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  You can't call organs a fee when they have zero value to the donor, on account of the donor being dead. It's just taking from them something that they no longer have any use for, and giving it to someone who has a very dire need and has the money to pay for it.
  I unticked the "donor" box on my DL renewal a long time ago after I realized that organs only go to wealthy people.
  
  --
  My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
Re: The reason opt-in does not work by Etcetera · 2017-01-02 11:26 · Score: 2

Sorry if you are not willing to donate then what moral right do you have to receive? Basically none.
Not sure you really want to go there... unless you're willing to renounce ER regulations about serving the indigent who don't pay any taxes.

--
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
Not harvesting by netean · 2017-01-02 11:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

Any discussion about this topic should NOT talk about organ "Harvesting". It is NOT harvesting, it's recycling and reusing something that you no longer have any need of.
Comment removed by account_deleted · 2017-01-02 12:09 · Score: 2

Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't do it by WaffleMonster · 2017-01-02 12:29 · Score: 2

I'll happily become an organ donor as soon as there is process in place to deny hospitals any and all financial incentive arising from harvesting organs. Until then call me a conspiracy theorist until your blue in the face betting against human nature or thinking doctors are goddamn saints having your best interests at heart.
Look at all the people addicted to prescription drugs in recent history. What changed? Who the heck do you think keeps prescribing all of this shit? Receptionists? Why are all the pharma sales reps always young chicks that just happen to be as hot as hell? How is this even an industry let alone a multi-billion dollar one to begin with? How does this serve the best interests of the patient? Numerous studies indicating widespread instances hospitals pressuring doctors to be profitable by forcing them to cut corners to cover for unsafe staffing levels to ordering tests or procedures they believe to be unnecessary or redundant to profit based discharge and admitting criteria. You would be hard pressed to find a hospital anywhere in the US where those involved in providing care would not admit to being forced to act in ways that go against their training to accommodate pressures of their job. Ask anyone you know who works in the field. A doctor a nurse...anyone and see what the they tell you or just lookup the stats showing 100k hospital deaths/year due to preventable errors. Hospitals are not run as bastions of humanity helping others they are businesses looking for profit the same as any other commercial enterprise.
I deal with enough assholes in my own family who openly root for death of relatives so they can cash in on inheritance. People are inherently scum. The only way to keep them in line is not to incentivize them to do scummy things. Organ donation is too big a carrot... one that can easily be addressed by structures to prevent people from devolving into scum.
I don't know of anyone who refuses to donate because they care what happens to their organs or some religious/philosophical bullshit... everyone I've spoken to refuse because they are human and they know enough about human behavior to fear being looked at as a profit center rather than a patient... You can strongly disagree and say I'm and everyone who thinks like me is full of shit...but you'll never change my mind nor will you be able to explain why structurally such a conflict of interest even needs to exist in the first place. If it is really about helping people this should be a no-brainer and everyone should be on board with structurally doing what is necessary to make it a reality. The little that does exist such as NOTA has effectively been bypassed/ignored with impunity.
Re:Fuck donations, why am I not allowed to sell th by fbobraga · 2017-01-03 00:41 · Score: 2

I'm very curious: how you will collect and use the payments?
Re:Socialist Paradise by fbobraga · 2017-01-03 00:43 · Score: 2

"American" (from US) AC, right? (people from United States: "Americans" are persons living on a whole fucking continent! It annoys me [a Brazilian])