I think that's fair. They do it in Israel, and I think it's smart. If you're not going to sign your organ donor card and you're willing to take an organ to save your own life, that seems pretty selfish. There aren't enough organs so when 2 patients need organs, all things being equal, the one who is a donor should get priority.
I would sign off on that, all other things being equal. The only thing is....there are so many factors to consider in prioritizing organ recipients, I don't think that you'll usually need to consider whether or not the prospective recipient is also a donor if you're looking for a tie breaker.
True. But people go to the front of the line all the time if they have a loved one who donates to them. If you're not compatible, you can participate in a donation chain. So medical necessity doesn't always dictate who gets the next kidney.
That is actually a rational statement. And that is how it works with universal healthcare in socialized countries. He who has the gold, still waits in line or uses the gold to buy the organ in a less civilized country, like the states.
It's my opinion that the organ donor system should be an "opt out" system rather than an "opt in" system. You should have to declare, in writing with your signature, that you are selfish enough to deny someone else your organs. The way it stands currently, you have to go out of your way to help others. Currently, doing nothing - and let's face it, we're really good as a country at doing nothing - doesn't help anyone.
you're not really an organ donor if you're forced to donate....let's not take away the dominion we have over our own bodies. i don't think that just because you sign a card saying you'll donate means you should get preferential treatment if you become in need of an organ. you haven't really done anything yet. how ethical would it be to overlook someone more in need of an organ transplant for someone who signed a card?
My problem is when they show up at your door to collect an organ: "But I'm using it ..." Monty Python covered it pretty well: ‪Organ Donor‬‏ - YouTube Tom
In NJ they changed it about 3 years ago so that it is opt-out, and you have to reaffirm at each license renewal (every 4 years, I think). They also added a unit on organ donation to the high school health curriculum.
That's actually a really good idea. And doing it at the local level is exactly the way it should be done. Question: if someone from out-of-state suddenly becomes eligible to be a donor, does this opt-out/opt-in policy apply to them? After all, they never really had a chance to 'opt-out' (depending on what their home state rules are).
I think opt-out may not be the most accurate term, as no one is automatically an organ donor. And I didn't realize when I made my OP, that part of the law doesn't actually kick in until 2013, so this is still kind of a hypothetical, even though the law is already on the books. As I understand it, the change would basically add a "no" checkbox to the license application/renewal. So you would have to actively check "No, I don't want to be an organ donor". Currently you could just skip that section and they would process the app assuming that you didn't want to be a donor.
I believe very firmly in organ donation. I have two motorcycles, so who knows? Maybe some cell phone queen or GPS jock will give me a chance to practice what I preach! However (comma!) from my very limited exposure to the process, somebody still has to sign off on the organ harvesting before they start divvying up your pieces/parts---so I'm not really sure what the NJ law will accomplish. I'm also not a constitutional scholar, but I'm thinking that requiring somebody to opt-out of an organ donor program doesn't pass my sniffometer for being 'constitutional'. Face it. Life isn't fair. It's just like the idea that helmetless MC riders should not be treated for head injuries, or that people who don't wear seatbelts should pay for their own ER care. My sinful nature allows me to smile at the idea that maybe people who opt out of organ donation should be put a little further back in the line than those who do not...BUT we all know that that's probably not going to happen. Use it as a tie breaker? Why not? But I don't see it happening.
for the record, i believe in it too. i have a cousin with CF that received a double lung transplant and then carried the olympic torch when the games were in salt lake city. she had a couple weeks left when she got the transplant according the doctors. it was a true gift.
