Oopsies

Comments

• imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  I think it’s interesting to ask whether people in the opt-out countries are really consenting. Can you really say someone has consented if you never actually made the request?

  source

  • todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Personally, I don’t really see that much value in the affirmative consent of the dead. Viable organs are hard to get, and save lives. I think it’s worth it to keep it opt-out.

    source

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I agree, but it raises an interesting argument regarding the definition of consent. I don’t necessarily believe in free will so I like to mention it in situations where you can easily see that people are more accurately described as reacting to their environment than making any kind of conscious choice.

      Simply by changing from opt-in to opt-out, you mostly reverse the observed behavior of a population. Lots of applications for this sort of thinking, like with voting for instance.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • ryannathans@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Necrophilia has entered the chat

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    This is sloppy, but:

    Image Image

    In fact, the truth is surprisingly simple: much depends merely on what happens if people don’t make a decision, something called a no-action default, or simply a default. The countries on the left of the graph ask you to choose to be an organ donor, and those on the right ask you to choose not to be a donor. If you do not make an active choice, you are, by default, a nondonor in Germany and a donor in Austria.

    Dan and I wanted to understand this. We started by asking a sample of Americans whether they would be donors or not by presenting them with a choice on a webpage. One group, the opt-in condition, was told that they had just moved to a new state where the default was not to be an organ donor, and they were given a chance to change that status with a simple click of a mouse. A second group, the opt-out condition, saw an identical scenario, except the default was to be a donor. They could indicate that they did not want to be a donor with a mouse click. The third group was simply required to choose; they needed to check one box or the other to go on to the next page. This neutral ques-tion, with nothing prechecked, is a mandated-choice condi-tion; it’s important, because it shows what people do when they are forced to choose.

    The effect of the default was remarkably strong: when they had to opt in, only 42 percent agreed to donate, but when they had to opt out, 82 percent agreed to donate. The most interesting result was from those forced to make a choice: 79 percent said they would be a donor, almost the same percentage of donors as in the opt-out condition. The only difference between the group that was asked to opt out and those who were forced to make a choice was that we forced the respondents in the mandated-choice condition to pick either box before they could go forward. It shows that if forced to make a choice, most participants would become donors. Otherwise, if they were given a default, most simply took it, whatever it was.

    From Elements of Choice by Eric Johnson

    It’s more complicated than the one example, and he covers it further, but as a rough guideline, it looks like forced choice and opt out are similar in this case. Which would make sense because the opposition is mostly religious and strict religious people are more motivated to opt out.

    source

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Wow, good source. 82% donor rate for the opt-out group versus 79% for the forced-choice is a smaller difference than I would have guessed.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Ephera@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Yeah, the formulation is a bit off here. With opt-out, you have no way to measure consent, because you can’t discern between people who actually consent and those who just haven’t opted out, for lack of knowledge or other reasons.

    These societies have simply weighed up the two options and decided that saving lives is more important than leaving personal freedom intact at all costs.

    source
  • hitmyspot@aussie.zone ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    We don’t get their consent to be buried or cremated or whatever else people do with the remaining bodies of their loved ones. It’s just opt out. Why should organ donation, which provides a societal and personal benefit be different?

    source

    • imaqtpie@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      I’m pretty sure people do make their wishes clear regarding their funeral preparations. You can put that kind of stuff in your last will and I would assume it holds some legal weight.

      I actually agree that organ donation should be opt-out, but there is an unavoidable argument against that. Namely, the fact that people have the right to opt-out at all implies that you have a responsibility to verify their informed consent before enrolling them in the procedure. At least, that would be the conventional wisdom according to the field of medical ethics.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Ok but for most people it doesnt really matter with a dead body. If you opt out because of religion its okay have it your way but other than that its not like it matters, youre dead.

    source
• Live_your_lives@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  What am I missing? What’s the oopsies?

  source

  • Zorque@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Forgot to opt in maybe?

    Or, for the more sinister approach, forgot people had to opt in to organ donation and was just taking organs willy-nilly?

    source
• LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Hey FYI in the US it has to be this way. In certain states they have an opt-out on drivers license forms, but that’s still technically an opt-in. Being a body-donor can’t benifit you, so thus your direct consent is needed for it.

  source

  • dragonfucker@lemmy.nz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    Being a body-donor can’t benifit you

    This assumes that “you” are a pattern of neural impulses (or a soul) rather than a body. If you’re a body, then you getting to beat your heart in someone else’s chest is surely a benefit.

    Drag agrees that people are minds, not bodies. But it’s interesting to hear this logic from a country where so many people argue that a woman is a uterus, not an identity.

    source
  • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    I feel like this is more an issue of poor healthcare than personal choice. It seems like rather than the U.S. chosing to be opt-in, they are physically unable to give everyone the choice to opt-out.

    source

    • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      No. It’s a thing due to its liberal legal system.

      source
• Zerush@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  statista.com/…/deceased-organ-donor-rate-in-europ…

  Most organ donnors are in Spain (Opt - In)

  source