There are some who believe the default position for organ donation should require all citizens be considered organ donors. Unless opting out of the program and stating otherwise the donor automatically acquiesces and agrees to donate his or her organs for transplantation into needy recipients.
The default position should remain as it currently is. Only a person of sound mind can make the decision to donate his or her organs. Organ donation is a choice. An individual's choice, to opt in should they choose, free of any government interferences.
How does this differ from a woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy to term? A woman must make the conscious decision to abort a fetus. The default position is that the pregnancy will carry to term. Government cannot make that decision. Even if it were to deemed to be in the best interests of society.
Organs from one donor may be used to save up to eight additional lives. To allow a government that power over it’s citizenry becomes a disaster waiting to happen. At what point will the needs of the many justify the killing of a few?
If, unless stated otherwise, a deceased’s organs are automatically donated, there always exists the possibility of a government determining that the best interest of society would be served by the death of one person. Opting out allows a government to determine that the death of one person could benefit up to eight others. A government cannot be allowed that determination. Sacrificing freedom of choice opens the doors to abuse and corruption of the system. If the current system is reversed, opting not to donate as opposed to opting in, a population will give their government too much power to determine what would be in the best interest of society.
Organs from one donor may be used to save up to eight additional lives. To allow a government that power over it’s citizenry becomes a disaster waiting to happen. At what point will the needs of the many justify the killing of a few?
If, unless stated otherwise, a deceased’s organs are automatically donated, there always exists the possibility of a government determining that the best interest of society would be served by the death of one person. Opting out allows a government to determine that the death of one person could benefit up to eight others. A government cannot be allowed that determination. Sacrificing freedom of choice opens the doors to abuse and corruption of the system. If the current system is reversed, opting not to donate as opposed to opting in, a population will give their government too much power to determine what would be in the best interest of society.
Morally, it may be the right choice to make. Religiously it may or may not be. Ethically, it is absolutely the wrong choice to be left to the hands of a government bureaucracy.
There is more to the issue than just morality, ethics, and religion.
When the organs from one donor can save up to eight additional lives and a hardened criminal is deemed a menace to society, isn't a logical step in that thought process, kill two birds with one stone? One man is executed to save the lives of others. For the benefit of society. Once the population starts down that road it will be very difficult to turn aside. What could start with the death of a convicted felon could devolve into the deaths of the homeless, non-productive members of society, freethinkers, or those with viewpoints opposed to the government. All for the benefit of society.
The only option available to society is to remain as is, only the individual may make the choice to donate his or her organs.
When the organs from one donor can save up to eight additional lives and a hardened criminal is deemed a menace to society, isn't a logical step in that thought process, kill two birds with one stone? One man is executed to save the lives of others. For the benefit of society. Once the population starts down that road it will be very difficult to turn aside. What could start with the death of a convicted felon could devolve into the deaths of the homeless, non-productive members of society, freethinkers, or those with viewpoints opposed to the government. All for the benefit of society.
The only option available to society is to remain as is, only the individual may make the choice to donate his or her organs.
2 comments:
This is a well thought-out piece of writing. Your premise that the government, by acting in "the best interest" of society, will abuse that power is probably not an unmerited one. However, it does seem a leap nonetheless.
One could argue that choice is not taken away if there is a registration form or other medium in which to register as a "non-donor", much like one must file a DNR. While there are those, often for religious reasons, who would most certainly file such a form, there are many who have not and would not register to be a donor, but also would not take the trouble to register as one. This would be beneficial for those in need of a life-saving transplant. Choice is still in play; it is even more conscious as it requires deliberate action. The earth and the remaining inhabitants thereof, become custodians of both the vegetable victim and the dead body. With the advancements of science, deference to the person’s spiritual belief system becomes the only valid reason to put an intact body into the ground or incinerator. Wills can and often do dictate the deceased person’s wishes as to disposal of the body. That would not be easily over-ridden by some determination on the part of the government; if the power to make such a determination were ever granted. . Is it society that will allow the government that privilege, or are you assuming the government will simply grab it as a package deal?
You said "Opting out allows a government to determine that the death of one person could benefit up to eight others." I do not follow this logic. There could certainly be restrictions in place to prevent this possible development. When it comes to society’s best interest, it does not rest totally at the feet of the government to make that determination. I do not follow how passing an organ donation opt-out system would give power to the government to instate some sort of “best interest” mandate that crosses many existing barriers to extermination of a person. The judicial system alone would prevent that occurrence not to mention public outrage.
Another leap is the one wherein the convicted felon is first forfeited and then it dissolves to be the homeless and even freethinkers. There are some bounding leaps in that logic beginning with the idea that convicted felons would be the start of a mass extermination. It would seem more logical that a death row inmate rather than a simple felon as you stated, could be given the option of leaving his organs for further use. He is going to die anyway. It might serve them as a sort of atonement for their negative Karma. They are not allowed this because of society’s superstitious fears along the conscious or subconscious lines of resenting that some part of the evil remains. Death row inmates are currently kept alive on tax dollars for years and then it costs more to put them to death when it finally does occur. Society benefits nothing from their life or death. He who took the lives of others could have the opportunity to save lives before leaving this earth, but it is denied him. That is, however, a separate albeit parallel discussion.
You said that morally and religiously making opting out of organ donation the default system would be right, and I agree. Your ethics argument revolves exclusively around government paranoia. I appreciate that sentiment and I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who asserted "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Still, the connection between organ donation and “best interest of society” is no straight line logic. You say only the individual may make the choice to donate their organs, and in that, we are in agreement. The individual can make a clear choice by stating so in writing. There should be no charge for any part of the process, of course, lest the poor be at a disadvantage with their choice.
Thanks for your response...I'm just trying to get people to use their head for something other than a hat rack...
Post a Comment