Moral dilemma

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

In terms of ethics, I think organ donation should be opt-out rather than opt-in

Can you explain what you mean by this? Who would be opting out? What would they be opting out of?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by suren

Actually the point of such "trolley problem" type dilemmas is to force us to imagine in situations where no alternative options are available.

Unfortunately it's in human nature to "Kobayashi Maru" their way out of contrived dilemmas. You end up either presenting a dilemma with (unstated) alternatives, or a dilemma that's so absurdly contrived that nobody takes it seriously anyway.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Can you explain what you mean by this? Who would be opting out? What would they be opting out of?

Yes, at the moment you become an organ donor by signing a form or card and checking boxes saying which organs you are happy to have used after your death. That is opt-in.

With opt-out, you are assumed to be an organ donor unless you have signed forms and carry a card saying "DON'T USE MY ORGANS!" Presumably the next-of-kin will also know of your wishes.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Yes, at the moment you become an organ donor by signing a form or card and checking boxes saying which organs you are happy to have used after your death. That is opt-in.

With opt-out, you are assumed to be an organ donor unless you have signed forms and carry a card saying "DON'T USE MY ORGANS!" Presumably the next-of-kin will also know of your wishes.

Gotcha, thanks.

That seems unethical to me. It violates basic principles of bodily autonomy. With opt-in, my body and all its parts are mine. I and I alone decide what to do with them and how to dispose of them.

With opt-out, my body essentially belongs to the state by default. The state decides what to do with it, and I have to take extra steps to claim what should rightfully be mine by default.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by suren

Yeah waiting for someone to die is also an option, although some might argue that after the first patient death it might be too late to rescue most if not all of the patients.

Actually the point of such "trolley problem" type dilemmas is to force us to imagine in situations where no alternative options are available.

The current one that I brought is about choosing between a huge number of victims or a few number of unfairly (randomly) chosen victims.

Originally Posted by theprestige

Unfortunately it's in human nature to "Kobayashi Maru" their way out of contrived dilemmas. You end up either presenting a dilemma with (unstated) alternatives, or a dilemma that's so absurdly contrived that nobody takes it seriously anyway.

I get the point of the ethical dilemma, which is why I tried to close up the loop-holes for the OP in my second post.

All I am pointing out was that in the first place the thought experiment doesn't present an ethical dilemma as raised. In the second, I was saying, it could be better phrased that way (steel-manning and also answering other objections raised).

Now, usually, the thought experiment is asked with the assumption that one perfectly healthy person walks into a hospital with remarkably suitable organs for five dying patients with, perhaps, unsuitable organs for donation (due to illness).

Then it becomes a difficult ethical decision, because only then are we sacrificing someone for others.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Gotcha, thanks.

That seems unethical to me. It violates basic principles of bodily autonomy. With opt-in, my body and all its parts are mine. I and I alone decide what to do with them and how to dispose of them.

With opt-out, my body essentially belongs to the state by default. The state decides what to do with it, and I have to take extra steps to claim what should rightfully be mine by default.

True, but after death is body autonomy really an issue? To some extent body autonomy cannot be considered absolute given that if I break some kind of rules on a social contract that I never knew I even signed, they can fling me in jail.

I would say that society is far more likely to benefit from something that will no longer be of any use to me once I am dead:

From Wikipedia:

Quote:

Opt-out legislative systems dramatically increase effective rates of consent for donation as a consequence of the default effect.[27] For example, Germany, which uses an opt-in system, has an organ donation consent rate of 12% among its population, while Austria, a country with a very similar culture and economic development, but which uses an opt-out system, has a consent rate of 99.98%.