Agree

by Rian Winters

Created on: August 14, 2007

Organ donation is not a new topic. It has been propagandized and perpetuated for several years long enough that it hasn't been on the "hot list" of controversial topics for some time. That is, until recently. With many countries changing over from an opt-in to an opt-out program, which would at its heart require people to check a box that says "no" rather than "yes," people are talking about it again.

People are talking, and I've been listening.

Most of the arguments I hear against implementing an opt-out program here seem to me to be nothing more than the old arguments against donating at all. They've just been recycled and mangled into a more "modern" twist. For instance: The submission that the only people who are on the waiting lists to receive organs are addicts and deadbeats that will only go out and destroy their new organs the same way as the old; This argument has gone through the media-grinder to become an insistence that the organs donated by an opt-out program will only be received by the privileged upper-class who had the time and money to opt-out, while the unprivileged, bereaved masses cry over the injustice of watching their loved ones be "packaged out."
These arguments and their kin are, simply put, illogical and impractical. Those people arguing that opting out would require too much effort are probably the same people who are afraid to donate now. Have you ever registered as an organ donor? Anyone who has would know how easy it is to do. I personally have done it in more than one state, and it did not take more than a few seconds any time. Many states have online registries now, some of which even allow, with a few simple clicks, a donor to designate which organs he wants to donate, and for what purposes. Every state will ask, when issuing permits and identification, if you want to be a donor. It's simple say yes, and you are. If we implemented an opt-out program, as stated, there is no reason for the process to become incredibly more complicated than a simple "yes" or "no" question.

There is a fundamental theory that most people debating over this subject seem to forget at times though that is perhaps because the problem lies deeper than this one topic. However, that theory applies just as much here as anywhere, and that is this: Governments exist in order to protect and help their people.

What would change if we opted to opt out instead of in? Would the government have more control over our lives? They already keep track of our personal information via the DMV system. Would changing one's mind about organ donation become immediately more complicated? It would not have to. So why change at all? Because, on an opt-out system rather than opt-in, we as people would have the right to demand that the government take care to protect our safety. For those who fear registering as a donor because of the belief that their name on the registry will cause emergency personnel to take worse care of their lives in a crisis, an opt-out system gives us the right to demand recompense and security against that fear. If we fear our organs going to people who lost theirs through irresponsible behavior, with an opt-out system, we can demand reforms in the medical system's requirements for who can receive donated organs. And most importantly, we can do all of this not only because our government would require us to take those few extra seconds to opt out, but because ...hopefully... there will be more help for those people who do genuinely *need* a donated organ.

Learn more about this author, Rian Winters.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.