Doctors saying brain dead; patients saying otherwise

[Ms. Toad]

169. Anti-choice, really?

Last edited Thu Jan 2, 2014, 02:11 PM - Edit history (1)

What part of guaranteeing every single person the absolute right to choose to refuse do donate their organs (by opting out) has any similarity to prohibiting a woman from being able to choose to having an abortion?

Opt out programs only provide a legal presumption about the wishes of an individual, when no choice has been made. The same as other laws relating to death. Inheritance, for example. All states have presumptions about how the individual who died would have wanted his or her estate to be distributed (many including provisions for property reverting to the state). An individual can opt out of this presumptive distribution by making a will - the principle is the same (including, in many instances, property being dedicated for public good).

There is nothing inherently evil about making a presumption, one direction or the other, which takes effect only if the individual chooses not to make his or her wishes known. 24 European countries have an opt out system.

But you don't like an opt out system, then adopt a mandated choice model. Everyone renewing their driver's license or state ID would be required to decide one way or the other - and that consent/lack of consent would be binding, regardless of the family's wishes. Illinois uses this system, and has a donor sign up rate 50% higher than the national average. And, unlike many other states, once an individual has decided to donate, it allows donation to move forward in a timely manner because the decision cannot be changed after the fact by family members who may feel differently (either way) about organ donation.