Organ donation is the gift of life. By donating organs after we die we can
literally bring someone back from the brink.
Pretty awesome right?
So awesome in fact, that it could be argued, and has been,
that everyone should want to donate their organs when they die, and consent for
donation should be presumed.
What would this mean? Presumed consent for organ donation
means that viable organs would be harvested from anyone who dies and consent
from the patient or family would be unnecessary. Every person would need to opt-out of the
donation program rather than the current “opt-in” plan we have now.
As with everything in life there are pros and cons with
an opt-out plan. Let’s start with an
obvious pro: with more available organs, more sick patients can get the
transplant they need. This is a definite
good, but is it worth the cost.
One of the arguments I have heard for mandatory organ
donation is: you don’t own your body once you die. The assumption is that once I have died
neither I, nor those who love me, have a vested interest in my body and until it
is released to my family for funeral arrangements it in essence belongs to the
government and my organs can be taken for donation without any ethical issue.
I adamantly disagree with the idea that I have no vested
interest in my body once I have died. My
interest extends from the values I have lived during my life. Furthermore, ownership and all decisions therein,
should belong to my next of kin. This
ownership is crucial for many families.
For me, the final act I can perform for my loved one is ensuring the
safe passage of their remains. It is
vital for me to have ownership of this task as part of my grieving process. To remove personhood and its intrinsic value
because life has left the body is illogical and disrespectful to the person as
well as the loved ones they leave behind.
Another issue with presumed consent is that it expects an
educated populous. At this point in our
society we need to recognize that this cannot be expected. The vast majority of Americans live very
uninformed lives for a variety of reasons.
If you don’t believe me watch some of Jimmy Kimmel’s Lie Witness News,
they will make you cringe.
Finally, I think that making organ donation mandatory
changes the psychology of the act. Right
now to donate you organs is altruistic and selfless. If it becomes mandatory it changes the dynamic,
instead of an altruistic giving of your organs, you become a renter of those
organs until your death. This may sound
like a small thing, but changing this changes the way we view donors entirely.
In the end, organ donation saves lives, which is an important
and wonderful thing. However, making
donation mandatory comes at a cost. Are
the lives saved worth possibly violating a person’s body? Or upsetting their family?
Treating everyone with respect and dignity is the most
important thing we can do. We should not
place one patient at a higher priority while neglecting the other patient or
their family.
As you have likely gathered I am strongly against
mandatory organ donation. That being
said, organ donation is crucial and we should educate all citizens on the great
gift they can give at the end of their life.
As we see with Lie Witness News, this will be an uphill battle, but if
you agree with organ donation tell a friend and tell them to tell a
friend. With passionate advocates making
the case to individuals we can raise the number of willing organ donors without
compromising the donation process.
I think it SHOULD be an opt-out system. Under the current opt-in system, the supply is so low compared to the demand, that I worry a doctor would be tempted to allow an organ donor to die just to harvest the organs.
ReplyDeleteIt is outright deceptive for the author to conflate opt-out donation with mandatory donation. Most people don't care, so an opt-out system would greatly increase the supply of available organs. Yet it still allows freedom for those who (usually for religious reasons) object. No one loses the rights to make decisions about their body under an opt-out system.
"It is outright deceptive for the author to conflate opt-out donation with mandatory donation..."
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry but in order for the author to have been outrightly deceptive wouldn't there need to be an intent to deceive? It doesn't seem like the author is intent to mislead anyone, however, she may be biased...Biased toward keeping a bit of humanity in the donation process maybe...