Forum Post: Discussion: Should people who can't get organ transplants consent to donate their organs?

In articles like http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=1514702 there are descriptions of unfair policies on organ transplantation that deny many people the opportunity even to get on a waiting list for transplants. "Wallet biopsies" where wealth is an explicit factor to get onto the list. People denied heart transplants because they're over 130% of "ideal body weight". Then there are the uninsured, who provide 25% of the organs for transplant. Even people with insurance may find it doesn't cover transplants - like these people: http://www.katu.com/news/40122542.html . Even if a transplant is received, the type of insurance matters - Medicaid patients die 39% more often and Medicare patients 12% more often than private insurance patients receiving heart transplants. http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/Health_Care_System_Flaws_and_Lack_of_Private_Insurance_Contribute_To_Higher_Deaths_Among_Black_Heart_Transplant_Patients

Now unlike many issues individual people are presented with, this is one where they can have a very tangible effect. They are still allowed the right to say Yes or to say No to donating their organs when they die, and while not everyone will be found in suitable condition for transplant, those who are will affect many lives. If they feel that this is a class war, in which they are dying, it is within their power to fight back and inflict real casualties.

Nonetheless, this also gives reason for concern. There are thousands of heart transplants each year. Reducing the supply by, say, 25% would likely kill more people than the September 11th attacks within a few years. Nor would these be "soldiers" of any plausible sort, but mostly sick elderly people, some in the 1%, more with a lucky brand of insurance. Though it is entirely legal to openly sit around and plan and execute such an action, morally it bears comparison to truck-bombing a hospital. The only technical difference being that it involves a matter of not consenting, rather than positive action - is that meaningful?

But the alternative, doing nothing, means watching thousands of poor people die, denied fair access to health care, while other poor people are expected to give away their organs for free.

To carry out such a campaign is within the OWS movement's powers, if it wants. My point here is: the people want the power - well guess what - you HAVE the power. And God help us, now we have to decide what to do, and suffer the moral responsibility for that choice whatever it is.