Paradigm shift
Madanthonywayne said:
Yet one is free to "opt out" and let your organs rot in the ground if you so choose. So I don't see the problem.
People had a problem with having to opt out of telephone surveys.
I'm one of those who believe most of what you listed as problems with the "opt in" system. But, in my opinion, this is no less voluntary than the "opt in" system.
If you object to having your organs used after your death to save the lives of others, you simply opt out. In supporting "opt in" I'm certainly not saying anyone has a right to someone else's organs (even after their death).
The underlying problem is one of implementation in consideration of people's traditional assertions of rights. An opt-out system for organ donation would mark a tremendous paradigm shift. While I personally don't object, I foresee tremendous complications in the transition. I object formally, and not personally; I don't see the program as feasible right now. My sense of where the American public is at does not support the idea that such a program will be accepted. To wit:
A basic sense of fairness should dictate that one should be willing to contribute to that which one may depend on someday. Especially when it costs one absolutely nothing.
The latter is a curiosity to me, because it makes all the difference in the world. Some things you would deny others while you are alive—e.g., basic necessities—because it might cost you something in taxes. But when you're dead, and it costs you
nothing?
Setting that aside, however, this comes back to the idea of the boundaries of ownership. I'm currently wrestling with nicotine. My desire to quit is personal. I want to be done with it. I don't want to kill myself any more than I have by this stuff. But I also drink alcohol, smoke pot, and eat things like bacon, or steak with peppercorn sauce, fried potatoes, cheese, foods with high fructose corn syrup (another habit I wish to break), and so on. I prefer butter to "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter". At what point, under the paradigm shift that would occur with an opt-out system, are people expected to presume the duty of keeping themselves healthy for the sake of others after they are dead?
Now, yes, there are plenty of principles to consider there, but here's the key:
Can you sell it?
Can you convince people to give up their booze, cigarette, recreational drugs, bacon, cheese puffs, and cherry-flavored Kool Aid for the sake of others in the event that one might die prematurely and leave harvestable organs behind?
This is the major challenge I foresee. And like other ideas I support—e.g., Communism—I simply don't think people are intellectually or psychologically prepared for a paradigm shift of that degree. This is one of those changes that must come about organically, evolve naturally in the conscience. Trying to institute this from the top down means a
huge political sales job. Regardless of the legitimacy of that pitch, do you think it will be an easy sale?
I expect it will be a frenetic mess. Now is the time to start changing people's outlooks, but it is not the time to institute such a dramatic shift as a matter of public policy.