how about a "check box" on your driver licence/visa about being a donor

[Uvwaex]

and its a better idea to leave things as is. personal liberties (yes, even when dead) > society

Are you familiar with the concept that too much "freedom" for one person can infringe the "freedoms" of others? That societies (the very thing that personal liberties you state are greater than), are made up of tons of people's very own personal liberties?

[lavafoxx]

But why, when such a simple change would end up saving lives? There's so much to gain and nothing to lose.

because its an unnecessary change. if people want to become donors, they can just use the internets to find out how.

[anveena]

Personally I think it should be an "opt out" program, not an "opt in" program.

This sounds like the way the program should be ran. I'd still be able to opt out, so I don't have any problems with it.

[Rndysasqatch]

Actually I was reading in the U.S. , even if you check "donor" it's still up to your family to decide if any organs get donated. So id you checked off that you'd like to donate and your family didn't like the idea , they'd stop it. I'm not sure the avenue to go down to make that official but was quite blown away by that statement.

[Uvwaex]

because its an unnecessary change. if people want to become donors, they can just use the internets to find out how.

or they could just use the internet to find out how to opt out?

Also, this is the reason "why", because only 40% of people above 18 are donors in the US.

http://donatelife.net/number-of-regi...inues-to-rise/

[Reeve]

because its an unnecessary change. if people want to become donors, they can just use the internets to find out how.

It's not an unnecessary change if it will save lives. There are a lot of people out there who would like to be a donor but are too lazy to take the effort to sign up. I'd rather the laziness be a reason someone feels violated than laziness be a reason someone doesn't get a replacement heart.

[Deleted]

Here in the Netherlands it's an opt-in system which means there's a shortage of organs. If you opt-in however your family cannot block it.
Our southern neighbors the Belgian have an opt-out system which means they have enough organs to help everyone as far as I understood it. Guess where the dutch now sometimes get their organs from?

That said I'm not certain if I want to be a donor. Technically you decay anyway and don't need it anymore, but it's a kind of irrational feeling about it that stops people from being a donor. Not that I know if my organs are worth much anyhow seeing I'm a type 1 diabetic and don't know if that rules me out for being a donor.

[Masark]

because its an unnecessary change. if people want to become donors, they can just use the internets to find out how.

When we're having a constant shortage of organs available for transplant, it's far from unnecessary.

[lavafoxx]

It's not an unnecessary change if it will save lives.

I guess the "but it will save lives" saying is the new "won't you think of the children"

in the end what we got now works, and the only people who's jimmies gets rustled are those that want change JUST for change's sake.

[Reeve]

I guess the "but it will save lives" saying is the new "won't you think of the children"

in the end what we got now works, and the only people who's jimmies gets rustled are those that want change JUST for change's sake.

What we have now DOESN'T work, because we're always short of organs. "It will save lives" is demonstrable, while "won't you think of the children" isn't.

[Hraklea]

in the end what we got now works, and the only people who's jimmies gets rustled are those that want change JUST for change's sake.

An opt out system saves more people than an opt in system. Less people dying is an improvement. Improvement is good. It can't be more simple than that.

I still wonder why changing the system offends you so much, as you didn't answered (or I missed the answer) why we should not to touch dead bodies by default.

[lavafoxx]

What we have now DOESN'T work, because we're always short of organs.

And you WILL be still short of organs even if it switched, unless you are gonna go out and start putting people down yourself for harvesting.

[Gamdwelf]

Actually I was reading in the U.S. , even if you check "donor" it's still up to your family to decide if any organs get donated. So id you checked off that you'd like to donate and your family didn't like the idea , they'd stop it. I'm not sure the avenue to go down to make that official but was quite blown away by that statement.

Depends if you die on the road, in some states you are open harvest.

[Reeve]

From the Wikipedia page:

There are two main methods for determining voluntary consent: "opt in" (only those who have given explicit consent are donors) and "opt out" (anyone who has not refused is a donor). Opt-out legislative systems dramatically increase effective rates of consent for donation.[1] For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.[1][2]

---------- Post added 2013-02-28 at 08:11 PM ----------

And you WILL be still short of organs even if it switched, unless you are gonna go out and start putting people down yourself for harvesting.

If you look at my post above, Austria has over 8 times the donation rates that Germany does because they're opt out instead of opt in. I'd like to see 8 times as many available organs for transplant in the US.

[Calzaeth]

I'm a donor. They can have whatever pieces they want. Take it all, I won't need them.

The way I think as well. Besides, my health is crap in so many interesting ways that I consider my registration a challenge to the medical staff: "If you find something useful, take it! "

[Deleted]

In The Netherlands you're automatically a donor unless you have officialy said you don't wish to be one which is something you can do online. It's not registered on a driver's license but it's in our goverment's database and easily accessible by health care individuals who have the need to do so.

[lavafoxx]

I'd like to see 9 times as many available organs for transplant in the US.

You shouldn't, not if they were taken without prior permission.

[Dorden]

You shouldn't, not if they were taken without prior permission.

Must...be...trolling... (At least I hope so).



Opt-out system should be used everywhere. No reason not to.

[Reeve]

You shouldn't, not if they were taken without prior permission.

Huh? Austria gets over 8 times the rate of organ donation that Germany does because they're an opt out program. Switching the basis of the US program would likely see similar results, increasing the rate of organ donation immensely. I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

[lavafoxx]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say there.

What I'm saying is that what we have now is good, and will be left as is.