The Glade 4.0

Same reasons people sign up now? Selfless ones?

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I honestly see nothing wrong with that.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

It doesn't cost you anything right now to donate your organs. If selling them were legal, it would.

It would cost you something to donate your organs if selling them were legal?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's the same logic that if you could pass your money onto your heirs no one would do charitable estate planning.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Same reason folks donate anything vs selling it. If anything it would increase availability. As those who can pay do, they get off the list and out of the way for donors. Consider it ez pass for transplants. Its not like you'd be able to buy your way up the donor list. At least any more than normal.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

It would make organ transplants more expensive. Sure, some would donate, but less would, I am sure.

Those who donate now would either sell or donate most likely. Thus all those organs would be available. Additionally those who would never donate might be willing to sell, making more organs available.

Also those who need organs could benefit by selling something else that is functioning normally, either something that is extra like a kidney or bone marrow or by having their next of kin selling something not functional at the end of their life.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

It is still a very slippery slope. We have a dozen people who are going to benefit and the hospital's cut is huge if we take this guy off life support right now. If we let him live until his heart sops naturally, it could be years, but the odds are very high he isn't getting any better.

Who makes the call as to when the vegetable gets harvested? Do you make nice sounds at the family and oops he died, or do you follow their wishes?

What if something comes up that could have saved him from his zucchini like existence between now and when the patient could have reasonable lived to?

I don't want to be the one to make those decisions.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

I'd bet that organs would be more expensive, but then again it's hard to get much cheaper than free. I guess the possibility of saving many, many people who'll die because there are no organs to transplant is worth it to me. Not to mention the whole concept that it's a person's body to do with as they choose...

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

We can put regulations on it. For example if you want to be a post-life organ seller you have to have a living will, last will and testament, and name people as executors to your last wishes just like any other asset you want to make sure ends up in the right place after you are gone onward.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

The best way to make the most organs available is to make organ donor programs opt-out instead of opt-in. There's no need to let people sell organs. With the exception of kidneys, it's generally not worth it for Americans to sell organs anyway unless absolutely ridiculous amounts of money are involved. Losing a lung or part of your liver is a HUGE hit to your quality of life. Organs become available when someone dies. By making organ donation opt-out, you get >99% of the population donating their organs anyway (almost nobody opts out of these programs in countries where you are an organ donor by default) without having to force a sick person burdened by medical bills to also cough up a ridiculous amount of money to buy an organ on top of it.

I'm not convinced it will be many, many more organs. And I really cringe at the idea of a heart going to the highest bidder.

Still, I'm with you on the last point.

Seems a bit wrong for me to have to tell folks to not scrap me for parts when I die. Opt in is the only reasonable way to do it. Your idea sounds like a Monty Pythonesque sketch waiting to happen.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Why is it wrong? You're dead, you're not going to be using them.

Same could be said for any of my possessions. Why are my body parts any different? Why would you believe it acceptable to deem them forefit upon my death?

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

No, that's completely different. Unlike your organs, your possessions don't spontaneously lose all value and function 24 hours after your death. Also, your possessions can be given to anyone at any time, your organs can't.

When you demand someone pay for your organs post-mortem, it's basically extortion, you are demanding that they pay you in order to prevent you from destroying something valuable. Also, unlike the labor put into creating your possessions, the organ-sales system creates no value, in fact it destroys value compared to the opt-out system, as the number of potential available organs is the same, but under an organ-sales system perfectly viable organs will be destroyed instead of used because the potential recipient couldn't afford it.

They are not community property, therefore they are mine to do with as I wish, just like should be the case of any of my property. I should not have to fill out a form to ensure my property is not taken and given away after my death. I should be able to sell my property to who I choose, when and if I choose to. The value of that property in terms of dollars is what the market will bear. If my property is the only one available, then I set the price, or decide if I'm going to sell at all.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Quite frankly, I find that attitude horrific. You're basically coming out and saying that if you're not going to get paid, you'd rather that someone die. Your organs aren't like other possessions and supply and demand don't really apply.

When you die, it's not like there are a thousand people bidding to get your heart. If that were the case, organ sales would make sense, because if you're going to save a life regardless, you might as well save the life that pays you the most. But it doesn't work like that. When you die, best case there is one or two people who are enough of a match for your heart to go to. They could be millionaires, or they could have nothing. If the poor person doesn't get it, they can't put it in the freezer and give it to a rich guy who can pay you six weeks later. It will be destroyed, he'll die, and your estate will get nothing. By setting a price on your heart, you are essentially declaring that you'd rather your heart be destroyed rather than save a poor person.

there are also teams that evaluate who the 'best' canidate for transplants are. Should the person who's been through 4 livers still be able to buy a 5th? Or should that transplant go to someone who's going to follow medical advice and stop drinking?

So you are going to choose to force people to go to their afterlife incomplete? Some people have religious reasons for not donating. But they are dead so what does it matter? But it is NOT okay for me to sell an organ post death and leave it to those who survived me? No.

And to quote Corolinth for the reason why: **** you, that's why.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

That's why you can opt out. If you seriously believe that having an organ removed will affect the quality of your afterlife, you can take the time to fill out a form.

But seriously, what kind of shitty religion are you following that decrees it's more important to keep your corpse perfectly intact than it is to save someone else's life? Not to mention you've got a pretty good chance of dying in a manner that's going to pulverize several of your organs anyway, does organ donation specifically result in Hell? I'm sorry, your God is a real *******.

You'll have convince me I have an obligation to save anyone in the first place before that argument holds water, 'cause I am of the opinion I'm not obligated to donate organs in the first place.

I've signed to gift them, and that's my prerogative, just as someone else has the prerogative to sell theirs. There's absolutely no obligation and any attempt to characterize one using bullshit emotional arguments is a big FAIL.

Or, better put... there's poor folks that need your heart RIGHT THIS MINUTE more than you need yours, X. Donate yours to them so they have a chance to continue living! And, if you don't, you're being an insensitive bastard.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Donating my internal organs should NEVER be the norm, it is called donating for a reason. But you supporting organ redistribution is not a surprise considering your repeated inability to convert to a capitalist lifestyle (in case you cannot tell, I am being an *** on purpose). For the record, I have been a donor since getting my license, but there is a difference between doing it out of kindness and doing it by default.

There are a couple of religions that say that you must be whole when entering the afterlife. Pierce your tongue... you cannot speak in the afterlife because you have no tongue. Pierce your ears and you cannot hear because you have no ears. Get tattooed and the parts you have inked are missing in the afterlife.

This is not my religion, but several have qualifiers like that. But one of the basic tenets of many religions is that we were given free will to do as we chose, and that includes keeping all of our inner parts when we die.




Really it boils down to this.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

I'm not comfortable with an opt-out approach. At all.