Economics‎ > ‎Choice‎ > ‎Forced Action‎ > ‎

Involuntary medicine

Are health foods considered medicine?

Types of involuntary medicine


The discussion around adding fluoride to water to protect dental health has proved controversial - criticised by some as mass involuntary medication.

Organ donation

Opt out
Will deem everyone to have consented to the harvesting of their organs upon death unless they explicitly say otherwise. The reason why people want this system, is because opting in is not fairly compensated. Giving a fair payment for that would be better than an immoral opt out.

Those who are against payment on moral grounds, should look at the morals of forcing people to give organs without explicit consent.

In the event a opt out system is implemented, families to be able to stop a donation if their relative did not express an opinion either way. Also how would an opt out satisfy religious groups?

How are tourists affected by this if they die, or children?

When you opt out, will your wishes be respected, how accurate is the system, could it be hacked to get your private details. There are lots of privacy issues here.

This is a not a principle we use for consent, think about rape. We dont't assume people consent to sex unless they opt out???

Do we need tattoos - "Internal parts not for recycling"

Precedent, -what next, the government claims your vote if you don't state otherwise?

How is this different than legalised theft? Where your money gets taken unless you opt in.

How about the presumption of consent for a DNR(Do not resusectate) notice? Decided by your Doctor's opinon of your state of general health should you survive a resuscitation attempt.
In every other area of medicine I know of consent is sought. Presumed consent is wrong, people may in their lifetime change their view, there may be issues of mental capacity. 

Fairness is achieved by people choosing fairness.

We dont't need to be treated like mice or pigs, where decisions are made for us.

How does this apply to children, who couldn't possibly consent?

Many might say what is the problem of an opt in, as there is no cost to yourself after you are dead. But surgeons may not go the extra mile to save you, if they know the opportunity cost of saving you is not being able to save 4 others.
Being an organ donor increases your value when dead, it increases the chance that you will die. 

Alernative solutions

To increase organ donation, why not prioritise those who need organs, who have signed up to be organ donors.

 Technology to grow new organs advancing, why not wait until then?

Perhaps just have this for immigrants a sa price of naturalisation.

You don't have to wait to die to


The State used to prosecute (failed) suicides and practising homosexuals. Thankfully we've repealed those obnoxious laws.
To change to an opt-out system for organ donation takes us back to State imposed morality, interfering in our lives (and deaths) without good justification.

It should not be up to us to have to refuse consent if this entirely natural position is artificially reversed.

Would you feel guiltyreceiving organs that you knew the owner hadn't signed up to donating?

There are cases of living people taken to the morgue. how many of these will get their organs taken without any explicit consent.

No-one has a right for a transplant, but an opt in system takes us closer to that.

The legalised assumption of consent, whilst well-intentioned in this case, is a dangerous precedent to set. It basically contradicts the principles of medical ethics.

Reasoning and concerns

There are many very noble reasons for not wanting to donate. But there can be thoughtful reasons for not donating too.
"The thought of your loved one being hurried away from you while they are still warm and going under the knife which I wonder how people will feel when faced with that grim reality."
ow they will treat the body before , during and after they remove organs. Will they guarantee that a body will be not treated as a piece of meat and will returned to their loved ones "
"did you hear the one about the old chap who'd had a stroke. There was no chance he could be recover, but we kept him alive on the machines until we could have a chat with his family. Give them time to come to terms with his impending death, and us harvesting his organs."
"What is a good reason will be a matter of opinion. Whether someone’s view is based in religion, squeamishness, or a view that they own their body, he or she is entitled to hold such a view, and it not for someone else to confuse what is good for them with what is good for another."
"Rather than a system of giving (aka donating), which is good, we instead would have a system of taking, which by its nature is bound to be objectionable"

Some people beleive the world is overpopulated, and that organ donation is a bad thing, not a good thing.

Why stop at harvesting peoples organs for transplants. We could also assume opt in for harvesting them for medical resarch and many other beneficial purposes.

Isn’t it the case that the decision to remove organs is taken before death? Isn’t it the case the that the organisation that makes the decision is the same one supposed to keep people alive?
Conflict of interest?

It's a legal minefield.
All a grieving family would have to do is say 'oh they signed the opt out, what do you mean it's not on your records, they said they had' and it's too much of a minefield for the authorities to go forward.
Or they could say after, 'but you only stopped helping them to get their organ's', with the help of a friendly ambulance chaser.

Some people may not beleive in mixing souls, in some frankenstein operation.

Not sure I like the idea of being on my death bed and knowing that my doctor is anxiously eyeing up my juicy kidneys.

Transplanting, doesn't save lives, it prolongs them.

A new definition of "terminally ill". The new version will pay close attention to the advantage/cost of keeping the "donor" or the "recipient" patient alive.


What if a vegan is forced to have an injection containing animal products?


Compulsory operations because its in your own good?

Compulsory sterilisation because your last child was taken into care?

Compulsory abortion because your foetus has a defect?

What's wrong with involuntary medicine?

If the recipient doesn't want it, then you have to ask, who is the medicine really for?
Doesn't it violate the medical belief of doing no harm?
Certain medicines may be against people religion or beliefs.

While all vaccines carry "tiny risk", there were "clear benefits" of avoiding vaccine-preventable diseases. Whow should be the arbiter of the trade off?