Posted on 09/04/2009 4:15:09 AM PDT by Man50D
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.
Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.
Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.
This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”
They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”
“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.
The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.
In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.
Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”
The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”
“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”
Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.
“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”
To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.
“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.
“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.
Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.
“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”
Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.
“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.
This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.
Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.
In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.
When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.
“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.
“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”
They advocate stealing money from the living so why should anybody be surprised. They want to steal our liberty which is our very lives so why be surprised. They think that the government owns us so why be surprised.
This idea converts Death Panels into Death Squads.
Need more livers? Go round up a bunch of “dead” people. (Wink. Wink.)
Gee, wonder how many people will die prematurely so they can harvest their organs just in case one of our elite politicians, one of there family members or one of the illustrious elitist can continue to live? How very convenient.
And it will end up meaning more money to the hospitals that do this. Gee, that money thing surely wouldn’t affect anyone decisions now, would it?
Thanks, backhoe. Shocking.
To All:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/863306/posts
China introduces execution vans
The Australian ^ | 3-13-2003
How can they "presume" someone gave permission for anything?
“Get your stinking hands off me you damn dirty ape”
Frankly, I’m very happy that he is stuffing his administration with so many people who fly in the face of what I have always felt was America. At first it was a bit disturbing, but then I realized that he was going to make it very easy for us to show the world the difference between his vision of America and my vision of America. And already the nation is beginning to see the difference. A few more years of this and it will be quite simple to present voters with a clear cut choice between Americas. Not the potential differences we had to deal with last election, but real, honest-to-goodness appointments that signal clearly his inner person.
Bit I'm not done with it.
Oh and the nudge thing. Talk about sick twisted egos. These guys must think they are god. I’m sure they know so much better than you unwashed masses, what you should and shouldn’t be doing.*gag*
it could lead literally anywhere.
read the abstract carefully.
it is essentially saying that our bodies are “public goods,” hence they can - in fact MUST - be used for medical experimentation.
There is a fallacy here. Organ transplants are expensive
The Death Panels will not permit transplants. If you need a transplant under Obama Care, you will need to take the organ it provides with you to India to get the work done.
Diabetic though I am, I currently carry a “you can have it” license. After all, if I’m done using “it”, why not?
But if they put in their default to the “we own it” crap, that’ll change to “eat s*** and die” from me, and I’ll check the “screw you” box.
I don’t give a rat’s *ss what others think, wouldn’t ask them, and don’t care about their opinions.
I agree with you. I just hope we have a country left to enjoy those benefits.
ghoulish is not the word for these scum. Why invest in technology to grow organs when you can steal them.
(BTW so much for roe v wade and control of your body)
The reason that organ transplants are expensive is the supply of organs is limited.
This policy removes that obstacle, allowing organs to be harvested to save those that are truly worthy of such transplants under Obamacare.
Agreed. The magic words are “when I’m done with it,” and as long as there’s still an “I”, I’m not done with it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.