In light of a bill before the New York state legislature that would make organ donation the default option for all citizens (h/t: Mark Steyn), I'm going to re-publish a post of mine from September of 2009. First, the dope on the NY bill:
. . . Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.Maybe they really don't favor it but would rather not admit that in a survey.
"Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy," Brodsky said.
Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.
My post from last fall: Nudging toward Bethlehem: Organ donation without consent
(cross-posted in the Green Room, where you'll find a few more comments, including one from Ed Morrissey, who doesn't have a big problem with donation-by-default):
I've written before about attempts by institutions to change cultural norms by creating default options which "nudge" the masses in the direction desired by the elites. I called it "horribly insidious: a subtle extension of the nanny state where numerous decisions are pre-made and pre-packaged for us, and the exact opposite of what it once meant to be an American: independent-minded and self-determining."
This proposal concerning our organs, made by Obama's "regulation czar" in his 2008 book, is an outrage, amounting to organ donation without consent:Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.
Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.
Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.
Read on. This idea is a real horror. It has nothing whatever to do with the merits of organ transplants or a person's beliefs regarding this personal issue. It's about one group making the decision for others.
Sunstein elaborates on the concept of "nudging":
“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.
“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”
Very progressive I'm sure. But what gives one entity -- especially the government -- the right to nudge an individual, through default options built into regulations and laws, toward a particular course of action? Who are they to make a judgment on our credit cards, our snacks, or our kidneys? The whole "nudge" concept presupposes that one group knows what's best for the rest of us. It's elitist to the core.
Addendum: Something I added in a comment at the Green Room:
That was then. Now this is actually being proposed as law.I understand that this is merely a proposal in a book. And it wouldn’t (heaven forbid) override anyone’s wishes or mandate organ donation. But it could ensure that all of the following would be eligible for organ harvesting: the lazy, the disengaged, the inattentive, the dysfunctional, the mentally ill, and anyone else who isn’t engaged or capable enough to make a positive decision on organ donation.
The default option is a powerful social engineering tool. It strikes me as wrong for the government to have an interest in this personal decision and actually steer individuals in the direction of organ donation.
Update: Cassy Fiano writes about this at Hot Air.
Update the second: See Bob Belvedere's post on this (and not just because he quotes me). If I may borrow his phraseology, he's spot-on with his observation and his quote. Please go read it.
Most recent posts here.
This is seriously scary. You have to "opt out" of organ donation now? What's next?
ReplyDeleteStill a proposal at this point. The default option is an insidious tool.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.punditandpundette.com/2009/04/obamas-manipulation-dream-team.html
How long before the 'nudge' becomes a bulldozer?
ReplyDeleteIt just reinforces my belief that they see "us" as subhumans. Just as they did the children in Waco, the mother at Ruby Ridge and the people standing in line with the "don't tread on me" homemade signs.
ReplyDeleteJill,
The only thing we are missing are gray uniforms and lightening bolts on the collars. History has returned...here.
Will we be smart enough and strong enough to resist.
Awarded the THE SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE DAY at:
ReplyDeleteThe Camp Of The Saints
From my posting, Jill:
I think we all forget one very important fact about the Left [even someone as steeped in, and devoted to, studying Leftist thinking such as me is guilty of this]: they want to institute a Culture Of Death.
If we're going to presume people are organ donors unless they opt out, there needs to be a reward for not opting out. Donated organs should be allocated first to those who haven't opted out. People who opt out of organ donation should go to the back of the transplant waiting list. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
ReplyDeleteAmericans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don't have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
According to a new survey by Donate Life America 43 percent of people are undecided, reluctant or do not wish to have their organs and tissue donated after their deaths. Is this because Americans don't know there is an organ shortage? No. The survey also reports that 78 percent realize there are more people who need organ transplants in the U.S. than the number of donated organs available.
Just about every single one of the 43% of Americans who aren't willing to register as organ donors would accept an organ transplant if they needed one to live. As long as we let non-donors jump to the front of the waiting list when they need transplants we'll always have an organ shortage.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers
Jill, thanks for directing me here from Potluck. Don't know how I missed this post. I read you every day.
ReplyDeleteI don't have the stomach to read Sunstein yet. It was all I could do to get through Zeke Emanuel. Went to the Hot Air site and read the comments. I have no idea when I'll be able to sleep next.
But I do agree with Sunstein about one thing: our human brains evolved with a good ability to avoid predators. Of course, what he doesn't mention is that he is one of the predators we are most anxious to avoid.