You know, I'm used to hearing stupid ideas come out of the American Enterprise Institute (and the crazy fuckers who reside therein), but mostly those stupid ideas are in the realm of traditional conservative whining (welfare, etc.). This little op-ed, however, _truly_ came out of left (right?) field.
Look, I understand that being the nutball conservative with a giant, inexplicable chip on your shoulder that you are, the thought of being able to legally regard the poor as a giant organ reserve that can be tapped in an emergency for a nominal fee (because, really, why do poor people need to be able to feed their children _and_ have a redundant kidney? It's just wasteful...) is damn near orgasmic. But there's a much simpler solution to this problem.
Organ donation should be opt-out, not opt-in. Currently, because religious leaders would have a fit otherwise, you specifically have to designate yourself as an organ donor. This is stupid. You should have to designate yourself as _not_ an organ donor. Otherwise, we assume that you, being dead, won't have any further use for your organs. I argue that this is a reasonable assumptiong because, let me remind you, you're DEAD. All things being equal, any unease you may have about the use of your organs is basically irrelevent at that point, because (say it with me now) YOU'RE FUCKING DEAD.
Basically, unless you come in and sign a form that says, "Yes, I am a selfish, superstitious fuck who wants his perfectly usable organs that could save someone's life to be buried under six feet of dirt because I believe that a magic, invisible man in the sky wants it that way," all your bits are up for grabs when you kick the bucket.
Really. That's all you need to do. You don't have to force poor people to sell their organs. You just have to change the default on a form in the DMV, and it would have a much, _much_ higher yield.
So, in conclusion, Ms. Satel, you're an idiot. BTW, are you aware that every single person listed on the AEI people page looks like a pasty, arrogant, white person just from their pictures?! I don't even have to read any of their shit. I can just _see_ it...
(Aside: what kind of douchebag has a link under her list of "articles" to what amounts to a Hillary-bashing session? Oh, right...the same kind of douchbag who would voluntarily marry Dick Cheney. *shudder*
At least maintain some semblance of decorum, for fuck's sake. It sounds like the blog post of a jilted middle-school girl more than it does something that actually deserves attention at a think tank, albeit a biased one. I swear...there are a lot of conservative women I don't like, but very few are quite the uniquely stupid bitch that Lynne Cheney is.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
That's a brilliant idea!
Why give the poor money for their organs when you can get all the organs you want from anyone who doesn't read their DMV form closely enough? Bravissimo!
As long as rich people will be shamed into admitting they selfishly want to keep their organs (and their estate taxes), I don't see why that shouldn't create a wealth imbalance in organ donations.
Did I mention they'll be dead when we get their organs? Not sure if I pointed that out. They probably won't care. Being, you know, like I said, dead and all...
And you're basing this on a long history of people not caring what happens after they die? I wasn't going to blatantly point out the primary fallacy of your post but since you're making me....
The point is, you're in a very small minority in not caring what happens to your body, your stuff, etc, when you die. Most people, rich and poor alike, at least want to leave stuff for their heirs, if not their body parts in one piece. So, given the choice of organ harvesting for cash or organ harvesting for free, most people would choose the former, dead or alive.
Right. That's my point. Why do people get any say what happens to them after they die? If we're all itching to be such an individualistic society with no notion of social conscience, then let's be individualistic, damnit. _You_ have absolute control over _you_. Not your family, not your friends, _you_. Once you're dead, there's no more you. There's just your organs. Your sweet, harvestable organs.
Now, if you think there should be compensation to friends or family for the organs, I don't have a huge problem with that. Personally, I think your organs belong to the common good after you die instead of being commoditized as family bargaining chips (bargaining chips that determine whether someone lives or dies, btw). But whatever. Use the income to cover the cost of a funeral. Just so long as someone gets the organs.
It's just assinine to me that the default is for life-saving organs that ostensibly aren't being used any more is that they be buried underground to decompose as part of an archaic and superstitious ritual.
Okay, think we're losing you here...
For a moment, let's dismiss the religious and cultural observations of, well, pretty much every civilization ever, as "asinine", and assume your "individualistic" approach. You first have to define the "you" in "there's no more you after you die". And even if you set that at a sub-Schiavo brain and organ functionality level, you then have to explain why a live person can't assign his body/organs/favorite couch to whomever he sees fit while he's still alive.
After all, I can pass my house down to my kids or my 5th grade teacher when I die (after which it is theirs and they're free to sell it or burn it down if they see fit). The law doesn't let the government seize it for a homeless shelter. So why I can't I pass down my body (and all the sweet organs within) down to whomever I wish? For that matter, if I do that, why can't they sell it on ebay to the highest bidder (since we're now being individualistic)?
You can't claim individualism and then argue against free enterprise. Well, you can, but you'd be wrong. It doesn't work. Either you're individualistic and you believe rich people can buy organs low, hoard them, and sell them high to other rich people or you give some value to human life that says it's okay for humans to decide what happens to their organs when they die, be it donate them to others, bury them underground, or burn them and pack them into an urn.
Obviously my comments on individualism were somewhat tongue-in-cheek. :)
These are the same universal cultural observations that also have tended to believe women can't possibly vote, govern, think, do anything other than pop out babies, etc.? And that the moon is engaged in a bitter, eternal conflict with the sun?
Please. Civilizations grow up. "Everyone did it this way!" is only a factor in policy decisions insofar as there's no quick-acting cure for superstition, irrationality, stupidity, etc.
As for the issue of inheritance, it's a policy decision. Sure, maybe it makes sense to let people provide for their children when they die. But maybe it doesn't make as much sense to let them demand their organs be allowed to rot in the ground after they die.
And while we're at it, maybe it doesn't make sense to let _all_ of one generation's possessions flow to the next. After all, the younger generation did nothing to earn those fruits other than being born into one family versus another.
*shrug*. Somewhat separate issue though.
Let's remember though: my original assertion was to have the default be organ donation, which says nothing about preventing someone from saying they don't like the default.
And my original point, albeit one laced with healthy sarcasm, was that, by making donation the default, the vast majority of the people that will opt out are those that are wealthy and generally better informed, meaning the poor are just as screwed, if not more so, as they are by an organ-auction system.
The wealthy have better things to do than worry about their organs after they're dead. The only ones that care will be the religious.
And this is now officially a stupid argument. :)
Post a Comment