I noticed the link above to the registration form is broken.

Fixed! Thanks, Scott.

I noticed the link above to the registration form is broken. We did some site updates early this year, anyhow here is the link to the registration form.

Thanks!

Just ask Corinne…

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=76846&src=5

Thanks again,
Scott M.
Donate Life Illinois – Campaign Manager
http://www.IAmAreYou.org

My analogy wasn’t meant to be taken that far. I guess a better analogy is an incentive system, more than road tax. I grabbed for an idea of something citizens in a lot of places sign up for to get benefits from.

The road tax system doesn’t fall apart because people cheat. As long as there’s an overwhelming majority who don’t, and there’s a system in place to try to stop people cheat.

If you sign away your organs in return of the chance to recieve organs, I don’t see how families who want to renege would succeed in courts.

I’m not saying it’s the only way to solve the problem, I bet libertarians are going to hate it. Let the invisible hand of the market decide who gets organs!

Perhaps a less radical solution would be to allow potential donors decide who gets organs. For example, people who could, but are unwilling to sign up to be organ donors would be on my list of people not getting my organs. You can decide which charity you donate your money to.

As to who can donate- according to the kidney foundation in Canada:
Who cannot donate an organ?
People with a history of cancer, hepatitis, or HIV/AIDS usually cannot donate. But even with that there are exceptions. Each case is looked at individually.

Therefore, a person who needs a liver tranplant who has cancer is less likely to be able to donate after death. Therefore, whatever weird thing stops people from wanting to donate is less likely to affect the cancer patient than the non-cancer patient who needs a cornea, who is more likely to then have to donate their organs after death accord to the system RW is proposing.

Re: #2- road taxes are an interesting metaphor, In my state, we pay a certain amount of taxes to drive on most roads, and we pay a fee to ride certain roads- the tollways. But people who don’t pay taxes- the poor, the tax cheaters, whatever, can still use the roads. Now, I am not a libertarian, and I think tax collection is the most fair way to build roads. But certainly not everyone who pays taxes on these roads are driving on them, even if they are benefiting from the Coca-Cola truck driving on them, and not everyone who doesn’t pay taxes stays off them, or again, doesn’t benefit from Coke driving down them. If donating organs is like paying for roads, then the system seems to already be in place- there is a pool of organs, and some people who use this pool (are going to) donate and some are not, but the benefits aren’t evenly distributed.

Of course, the real problem is that some people are going to fake their willingness to donate in order to get an organ, and then they could easily have their heirs refuse to donate their organs upon death. I am not sure a court would deny a family that right to decide what happens to their dead relative’s organs, paperwork be damned. And if they claim their family member was a part of a religion that refuses to donate organs, I really, really doubt the court would force the family to have their dearly departed person cut up after death if it was somehow about Jesus or something. It could even be that the recently dead person wanted their organs donated in exchange for a liver, but their family refused.

And then where does that leave the people who are not likely to be able to donate their organs- the HIV+ patient, the cancer survivor, the hep victim? Do we deny them organs because someone else needs them and that cornea-needing-otherwise-healthy person is more likely to be able to donate their organs post-death?

It’s a nice idea, I just don’t think it is practical in the slightest.

1. People who are unable to donate organs (due to medicines or age or method of death or whatever would make them unable to donate) could say they totally would donate their organs, really, but just can’t, what a shame. Therefore, having to donate after death is only a reality for some of the people seeking transplants.

They don’t know how they’re going to die, and if they die, they don’t need the organs anyway, it shouldn’t effect their ranking. I don’t think there’s many people who can’t donate organs if you factor out the way they die. I’m willing to let those people go above the ones that could donate but won’t.

2. Someone who decided they don’t want to donate their organs is now in a position where they need an organ or will die. Therefore, requiring them to donate (which probably wouldn’t hold up in court or with their families) is in effect withholding life-saving treatment over… selfishness, or some sort of personal religion, or some other personality flaw that still probably shouldn’t have to kill them.

It’s not withholding life-saving treatment, but the effect is the same. Think of it as a tax, like road tax, that people have to pay if they want to drive on public roads. It’s fair and it encourages people to change their behaviour in a way that would solve the problem in the first place. They don’t have an automatic right to organs.

Oh, I didn’t know that.
I wasn’t offended. I just thought you’d point out something that I missed ‘cuz sometimes, I overlook some obvious rebuttals.
Thanx for clearing that up though.

i actually meant that you seemed to be the only person here specifically arguing against donation as default, and as i also actually respect your ability to argue in an intelligent manner, it was worth me addressing my comment to you. no sarcasm, no disrespect intended.

1. People who are unable to donate organs (due to medicines or age or method of death or whatever would make them unable to donate) could say they totally would donate their organs, really, but just can’t, what a shame. Therefore, having to donate after death is only a reality for some of the people seeking transplants.

2. Someone who decided they don’t want to donate their organs is now in a position where they need an organ or will die. Therefore, requiring them to donate (which probably wouldn’t hold up in court or with their families) is in effect withholding life-saving treatment over… selfishness, or some sort of personal religion, or some other personality flaw that still probably shouldn’t have to kill them.

I like the idea, but I am not sure it would be feasible.