Should everyone automatically be an organ donor unless they opt out?
That is what France has done. If you don't want to donate your organs, you must inform the government, otherwise you will possibly save others' lives after you perish.
Seems like a smart move, considering that there's a shortage of vital organs and so many people awaiting transplants. I wish the same legislation would be adopted here.
The new "opt-out" system is aimed at combating widespread organ shortages and long wait lists for transplants. Previously, French citizens who hadn't specified whether or not they wanted donate after dying could have their organs' fate left up to relatives. Now, the responsibility will fall on individuals, and next-of-kin will no longer have carte blanche veto power.
Those who object to donating their organs will have to sign up with a National Register of Refusal or make their intents known through written documents they leave with their families. They can also tell their relatives that they've chosen to opt out, and these family members would then have to provide signed documentations to that effect to doctors. About 150,000 people have already signed up for the refusal register, according to The Guardian.
Opt-out donation systems already exist in a number of places in Europe, including Spain, Austria, and Wales. While they can be controversial, there's at least some research suggesting that they improve donation rates in countries that adopt them.
http://fortune.com/2017/01/04/france-automatic-organ-donation/
= new reply since forum marked as read
It says that first and foremost others decide for you, but you can veto it.
Retirement savings plans that are opt-out have people save a lot more money. Often they don't know about it until they're told, then they object. But not enough to go through the grief of opting out; and in some cases they can only change their benefits plan once a year.
I knew people who wanted opt-out student fees for voluntary things. Why? Because they knew that by the time most students realized they were paying for something they wouldn't benefit from--subsidizing others--it would be too late. They justified wanting opt-out fees in all sorts of ways--students would use whatever the program or service was if they paid, they really wanted to opt in but were too lazy or didn't know they could, it was for the common good. Mostly it was pushed by people who had an agenda, often an agenda that helped the program that they used or participated in--so they benefited from it psychologically or in practical terms.
Opt-out plays on lethargy and procrastination. It makes the decision for them ("you will do this"
unless they actually take positive steps to stop it. I think of this as fleecing the sheep. Even if a lot of countries do it, it rather treats people as governmental possessions. Very un-English-common-law in thought. But very paternalistic.
Opt-in programs suffer from lethargy and procrastination. But it doesn't make a decision for them ("you can do this" and requires they actually take positive steps to participate. Sort of you do things with the consent of the participants, as opposed to relying on their inertia or lack of knowledge.
Relying on utilitarianism is a problem for organ donation. There's a country without a waiting list for kidneys. Why? Not because of negative check-off on some form, but because you can actually sell a kidney. It benefits the living donor and the recipient. It's Iran. https://www.statnews.com/2016/08/25/organ-donation-kidneys-iran/
And I only have half a brain!
I hope fortunes change for you father real soon!
