That's right, you read it right, Negative Option Organ Donation!
Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) for Ontario Peter Kormos (NDP) introduced a Private Member's Bill (a bill introduced by an an MPP outside of cabinet) to introduce negative option organ donation for the Province of Ontario.
For those of you that are unfamiliar with the concept, several years ago, companies tried introducing negative option billing to their clients. How this worked is that you would be notified that you will be automatically enrolled to receive a product or service, usually the latter, unless you respond to them in the manner they require, that you do not wish to receive the product or service. This method of marketing preyed on the ignorant and apathetic to generate additional sales. Of course, there was an outcry from the public and governments and this method of marketing has generally been dropped...or so we thought.
The introduction of this bill by Mr. Kormos is wrong for so many reasons, so lets only talk about the main one. If you want to generate a larger organ donation list, negative option is not the method by which to do it. Picture this scene:
Dr. Feelgood: I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but your son is dead.
Mrs. Religious: Can we see him?
Dr. Feelgood: You'll have to give us a few minutes. We're just finishing up on harvesting his organs.
Mr. Religious: WHAT?!!?!?
Dr. Feelgood: Yes. Our records show that your son did not opt out of organ donation, so that cleared the way for us to harvest his eyes, lungs, heart, liver, and kidneys.
(Mrs. Religious crying)
Mr. Religious: But...but...we're of a religion that doesn't allow organ donation. Can you stop this?
Dr. Feelgood: Um...it's already too late, the organs have gone off in their different directions and the recipients have been prepped for surgery. It would be quite impossible to retrieve them.
Mr. Religious: But I'm sure my son never received any notification. He was quite devout. He never would have allowed this. Do you realize that by harvesting his organs, you have condemned his soul to eternal damnation?!?!?!
Mr. Feelgood (looking sheepishly):....um...our bad.
I know this scene sounds a little ridiculous, but maybe not too farfetched. By using negative option organ donation, the government would prey on the ignorant and apathetic. Ontario has a large immigrant population and many people wouldn't be able to read the notice, let alone be able to respond to it.
The media has reported that other jurisdictions have more active organ donation programs. Spain has this negative option program going and their organ donations are way up. Well of course! If potential donors have to opt out, chances are you'll get more organs! I also heard that another jurisdiction offers $300 to organ donors to offset funeral expenses. Cash for organs? Maybe, but it's better than the negative option. The lesser of two evils, I say.
What can be done to increase organ donations to reduce the waiting lists? The current system in Ontario provides information on organ donation when you renew your licence. They ask you to check a yes box. Not too beneficial when dealing with an apathetic audience. Well, the Ministry of Transportation uses service kiosks to issue renewals, why not add a page where people have to answer the question, "Do you wish to be an organ donor?" The page would highlight what your current status is and you couldn't go onto the next step without answering the question (this could also be applied to online services). But this would address a small proportion of drivers. What about those that don't drive. How about tax forms? The question can be asked on the provincial tax sheet. This form goes to anybody that earns income (of course the recipient would have to be 18 or older to answer the question). I'm sure there are a dozen other methods, not including any financial incentives, to increasing the organ donors list. Whether it's through direct contact, or through forms for other services, or through an online presence. Negative option need not be used.
Where does that leave us? Reports in the media indicate the McGuinty government will not support the bill for negative option organ donation, therefore it will die (phew--oh the irony, considering the bill's contents). The Ministry of Health should think about how to get the message out there, instead of just relying on mailer inserts with driver's licence renewals. Of course, they should also look at reducing hospital wait times, but that's another story.
As for Mr. Kormos, you at least brought the problem in the public eye, so you get a pat on the back for that, but you did it by introducing a bill for negative option organ donation. For shame! I thought you would have been smarter to come up with a more inventive, workable solution. Apparently not. Now that you got your five minutes of "LOOK AT ME" in the news, why don't you go back to the drawing board and come up with better options. Or was this just a publicity stunt for the benefit of your constituents?
Wings Over The World
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Your scenario is ridiculous and ignorant! I work with families everyday who decide to and not to donate their loved ones organs and I can assure you that if no family or patient would be treated with such disrespect. You obviously have never been with a family when making such a generous courageous decision or have any clue how the negative option donation would work. Shame on you! Someone, equally as ignorant as you to the process of donation, has read this and decided not to become a donor, thus costing someone (maybe you one day) a second chance at life!!
Of course my scenario is ridiculous, I even say so! It may be somewhat humourous (albeit of a gallows type), but hardly ignorant. You have to put this scenario within the context of the entire post, rather than reading it in isolation.
The point of this post was that negative option organ donation is probably not the best method to increase donations in a pluralistic society where you have a population made up of people from many different cultures and religions. I even make a point of providing alternatives! How would this legislation serve its purpose when it comes up against a constitutional challenge when someone feels it violates their religious practices? A Jehovah's Witness church member comes to mind.
I may not have been directly involved in a decision involving organ donation, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant to the importance of organ donation and it's effect on those involved. However, at the time this story broke, the media reported that negative option organ donation would operate just like any other negative option operation: you are automatically enrolled unless you opt out. Given that you occasionally see a media story how someone was not aware of the negative option for a service from a company until it was too late, looking for a way to reverse the consequences, I don't think it's a far stretch to say that this may also happen with organ donation. The fact that government consumer affairs departments introduce laws to curtail negative option in business, why should they reverse that view when it comes to organ donation?
I thank you for your comment and wish you hadn't posted it anonymously. You are doing noble work, and I thank you for it. Before you read the remainder of this answer, I invite you to re-read my post, exclusively of the scenario I posted.
As I stated, I'm not opposed to organ donation, but I don't think that negative option legislation is the way to increase participation. Mistakes are made and someone's organs may be donated even though they opted out. I would rather err on the side of caution, for the benefit of the majority. Obviously, what the government is currently doing is insufficient and I even proposed alternatives. At the time I posted this, it seemed as if this was an easy way out and even thought that maybe Mr. Kormos was using it as a vehicle for his own political gains, since I believe he was in the news quite often during that period. Of course, only Mr. Kormos could answer that question.
I hope that people did not view this post as a discouragement towards organ donation, but rather as a vehicle for discussion and decision about whether they or their family members wish to donate. I don't know how far my message has reached, and I don't believe the overall message of the post discourages anyone from donating. But if it helps just one person to decide to sign their donor card, then I'm happy.
My wish is that you have re-read my post and see the greater, positive message that I'm trying to convey. I even invite you to provide web links that may help people with their decision. Also, feel free in reading some of my other posts to get a sense of what I'm trying to accomplish with this blog. And whether you have changed your mind or not about this post, I leave you with a final thought:
Keep up the NOBLE work!
I do think that organ donating should not be optional! There are so many people who need organs and so little people who are donators. Why you ask becuase they either don't know how to become one or they register as one wrong. If people really don't want to be one then get off your lazy ass and opt out! It is not that hard if it is truly against your religion or views in general, it must be important so take action. I do believe we could save more peoples life if this policy was in affect.
People will trample all over your rights if they think they have a good cause. This is a fantastic argument in favor of the spirit of the second amendment.
Nice Post. It’s really a very good article. sponsor a family
You really know your stuff... Keep up the good work!
Post a Comment