Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by bassman9000 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

bassman9000

Already happening in this thread

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252408

The next step is shaming those who opt-out. Which will then cement the ownership of the state over your organs.

Edit: and more:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23252636

View on HN

The thread you linked doesn't have any shaming. It proposes a quid-pro-quo linked to willingness to be open to organ donation. Your choices remain private, so the only people who can shame you are those you choose to tell.

In addition to that, there was this:

> Will you automatically take my organs if I don't opt out? No. Your family would always be involved before donation takes place, so it is really important that you choose whether you want to be a donor and discuss what you want to happen with your family, so your decision is clear and they can have peace of mind knowing that your decision is being honoured.[1]

1. https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/helping-you-to-decide/about...

The thread exposes exactly what OP was suggesting: you start by making it automatic with opt-out, instead of explicit opt-in. And the next step is to suggest you don't deserve an organ because you opted out. No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in.

I'll save the thread for the first time some politician uses the you're not an organ donor ammunition against another. Which will happen. Which didn't happen before.

It's a subtle but profound change, and the legislators clearly knew and sought that.

> Your family would always be involved before donation takes place

That's nice, what will happen if:

a) you don't have close family

b) they can't be contacted fast enough

> No one would suggest it before, if you didn't opt in.

Because in an opt-in system it's possible to not be an organ donor through oversight, laziness, lack of awareness, or carelessness. In an opt-out system, you have to actively want to not be an organ donor and take steps to ensure that.

I agree that making people who opt-out completely ineligible to receive donations is not right - you should always save a life if it's possible. I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line.

None of that fits the definition of "shaming" though, which is what the original poster was concerned about.

you have to actively want to not be

They turned something you could do for your fellow citizens, 100% of your own volition, and consciously in 100% of the cases, into an obligation. Which, again, makes your organs, unless you opt-out, property of the state.

I also don't see the problem with putting people who opt-out in the back of the line.

I don't see a problem putting people who pay more taxes in front of the line. They contribute more to the NHS, including making transplants possible. You can even argue than keeping the wealthier alive is more beneficial to the whole system, as, if they die, they'll stop contributing.

This is a terrible idea, of course. How much, in any kind, organs or money, you contribute to the system, shouldn't dictate the attention you get. But it's freaking scary how many in this thread are suggesting exactly that.

There are already criteria used for tie-breaking between organ recipients.[1] Most of them are not in the recipient's control. Are those unfair too?

Ideally a default opt-in system would increase supply sufficiently that no one in need will go without.

1. https://optn.transplant.hrsa.gov/learn/about-transplantation...

Would you prefer your next of kin be allowed to sell them instead?

Strawman. I would prefer opt-in.

I would happily support the privilege of people to opt out of organ donations, as long as they are willing to irrevocably forego being the beneficiaries of an organ transplant.

Or hell, at that point, I'd happily make it opt-in.

I'm not so sure about that. I can easily imagine misguided parents angrily opting their children out - it would be cruel to deny transplant to these kids just because their parents are, well, not so bright.

I disagree. If there's an available organ and a recipient in need, it should be used regardless of the recipient's donor status. Why waste the chance to save a life? Donated organs aren't good for very long.

It's fine to use donor status as a tie-breaker if multiple recipients are in contention.

EDIT: Plus the other reply about children.

There's nearly always a shortage of organs, and people who opt out are contributing to this shortage. If you want donor status to be a tie-breaker, it will, in practice, be a ban.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com