Shared publicly  - 
So Zuck's announcement is an organ-donation tool on Facebook.
This creates social pressure to donate. Thoughts?
Find facts about organ donation and learn how to be an organ donor through the awareness initiative of ABC News, Facebook, Donate Live, and other organizations
Cynthia S.'s profile photoEstelle Metayer's profile photolaurie woods diltz's profile photoDan Leighton's profile photo
There is no good reason not to donate. I support almost any measure that will increase donation. 
I still don't understand why organ donation is opt-in instead of opt-out, honestly.
Is it opt-out like most of their user preferences? :)
Zuck knows Social better than anyone out there. I think it is a genuine move. Having said that it will lead to some privacy and safety issues in future.
As somebody with at least 2 friends who wouldn't be alive were it not for organ donors, I feel it should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in concept. Whether Facebook is the right place is rather open to debate.
This could be huge and I applaud Zuck's move. There is not a single good reason not to donate. Period.
when it is all said and is the family that makes the final decision...not the individual. While I agree that organ donation needs to be more freely talked about....the discussion needs to be with the people who will be the ones signing the papers at the end....NOT with your cyber-friends. Maybe this will help facilitate that discussion....who knows.
Which organ is HE donating???
In some countries it is. In Croatia, everyone is potential organ donor, unless he did not declare otherwise while still alive (or having non-impaired conscious processes): in fact an opt-out. There might be an exception if close relatives of potential donor declare strong opinion against donation (but if the person declared him/herself a donor while alive and in good mental health, the voice of relatives is irrelevant).
they will take your organs not matter what... after someone is dead and if the family can afford a funeral, the person is fully clothed and and family never knows... interesting post thanks for sharing
+Stuart Memo It will be fun after people realize that Facebook has automatically opted them in, and after they did not update their settings within 7 days grace period, they are considered donors by their own wish. :-)

ObMontyPython: Organ Donor
Admirable idea, the second it's misused it'll be a complete clusterfuck though. I'm thinking "desperate mother turns to Facebook for kidney for her dying son" or something of that nature.
I don't believe that to be true, Jon Doe.

In either event, as I said, this might increase organ donation. Once I Get to an actual computer I plan on telling everyone on FB that I wish to be a donor, because in this case doing so publicly could serve as an example. 
I am a registered donor, I give blood, platelets, and am on the bone marrow registry....and the people that matter in my life know all of this....and maybe what +Leonard Suskin says is true....If I post it publicly...maybe someone will be inspired to do the same. who knows.
Yea, I really don't like facebook, and am no longer a member, but this is nothing but good. Guilted into being a decent human being is what social circles should be about.
Toni; most organs are donated after death. I believe that being dead is the one precondition unde which you will still be uninsurable, even under the Adfordable Care Act. 
Agreed +LaDonna Pride - I think increased awareness of organ donation will far outweigh any downsides this will have.
Admirable idea that will be abused. I'm sorry, I just don't trust Zuckerburg. Never have and never will. I also think it's silly to say that Zuck knows social better then anyone. For someone to essentially build his site by data mining user data from other sites then doing the exact opposite with his site, yeah, I don't trust him. Facebook owns every post, photo, ect.. you post on there, you can not delete an account and you can no longer delete posts, you can "remove them". I wouldn't be surprised if FB slipt this into there terms of agreement which no one reads. Personally, I think everyone should be an organ donor but I don't think Facebook is the right place to do it. Probably not enough oversight and scams already in the works.
+John Doe It is not that simple. Of course, it is possible to steal organs (Google for people that had plastic tubes put in place of their own bones), in order to have a good transplatn you have to have several things in place: a person should be in good general health, should not have died of a disease, should be brain-dead with functioning body (such as traffic accident victims in intensive care unit), must not have any serious viral or fungal disease, dying of septicaemia instatnly puts the body off the list...

Even if you're a willing donor, you might not be able to donate your organs after death for some of these reasons.
+Caleb Johnson That's not the most enlightened comment I've ever heard. Put down your paranoia hat and sign up to be an organ donor and save a life.
I agree this can help a lot of people and is a very positive thing. It's just there always is a selfish, greedy, jerk who might misuse this information. I support this idea but it has to be well managed and controlled so Facebook doesn't turn into an organ black market or something.
I think Facebook is becoming too invasive. This issue is nothing to do with Facebook in the least. You are missing the point. If there's an organ donation tool I won't use it anymore than I use Questions, where I work, where I went to school. Some things are private and need to stay that way. Facebook doesn't need to know if I've had an abortion, what color my underware are, what my bra size is, how many times I had sex in the last month. If I'm going to discuss organ donation its going to be with someone more important than Farmville!
It's one feature on facebook I think is very useful
I know! I know what it is all about!!

Mark Zuckerberg realised that he is a mortal like everyone else. Facebook will grow into an international superpower and eventually it will be granted status of a sovereign state by United Nations (later to be succeded by Facebook Nation), but Mark Zuckerberg will grow old and die. Even if he's young today, the dent of time will get him at last.

Just the other day, while he was silently chanting at his bedroom shrine of Steve Jobs, the ghost of Him whispered in Marks right ear: "You will do what I could not... listen to me, young padawan, listen and take action: you will make an application for Facebook that will automatically list everyone as an organ donor. It was too late for me and App Store, but you're young and healthy. You will succeed in providing an endless store of replacement organs for your future ailing body and you will live FOREVER!"

The ghost then dissapeared with an echo of bwahahahaha.mp3 (Copyrighted, available in App Store only)
It's good to recycle - already do it via by drivers' license.
+Caleb Johnson I think that the shortage of organs is such, that if you donate any organ, doctors would pretty quickly find a good match recipient. As a donor, you don't have to worry about recipients.
I was an editor at Parade Magazine for a decade. During that time we published numerous stories about organ donation, always from an advocacy POV (stories of lives intersecting, lives saved, lives redeemed, info on how to become a donor). That was social pressure, too. Mr. Zuckerberg simply has a much more powerful tool. I hope it works. I signed the back of my driver's license.
+Radoslav Dejanović Im sorry I should have been more specific. Your oragns will be taken for experiments, testing medicine ect without family approval or knowledge...
+Caleb Johnson Depends on your definition of "enough". If it makes just a handful more people sign up to be organ donors then I'd say they did a good job.

Would you have preferred they did nothing at all?
I don't think this is a medical information, but there might be certain issues with that. There's one positive thing: FB is promoting organ donation, and this is indeed a good thing. +1 for Facebook... I mean, one more Like for Facebook. :-)

However, what if people do not want the whole world to know that they are willing to donate organs? This is a privacy issue and it does open a possibility for a misuse.
I do not mind donating my healthy organs after I do not need them (and they can save multiple lives) and I do not mind doctors taking any good part of my body after I am gone to save lives, restore vision or movement, or even give someone my face (that's a little bit spooky, I admit). What makes me conserned would be if unethical doctors take my organs before they're done everything they could to save my life or wake me (there's quite a bit of things going on regarding the people in vegetative state, as it seems not to be as irreversible as doctors previously tought). Or relatives wanting their inheritance.

That's not in direct link with FB, but still - some people would like to have just their family practicioner be aware of such decisions. And in that sense, yes - this move does put pressure on people to publicly declare their intent. If they care about what FB people say about it, of course.

Donating organs is very personal choice, and that - be it acceptance or refusal - should not be of concern to anyone else.
+Tino Kremer Well, you could easily get around that by:

a) Not making your donor status public to everyone
b) Not detailing which individual body parts you've donated (is that even an option?)
c) Not trying to mislead your insurance company

What you're talking about is a problem with the insurance industry, not a problem with Facebook.
+Evy Beaucainanne - why keep this private? Why not about it from the mountaintops, if your choIce could inspire others to follow? Allowing your organs to be used after your death is a good deed. Making it something secret maintain a the veil of silence we wrap around death, and might keep others from considering this as part of their mortality. 
+Caleb Johnson Well, let's be clear here - Facebook isn't "pressuring" anybody to donate organs, they're just giving people the option to share their donor status.
+DL Byron kinda cynical. I bought into the "Don't be evil by Google" I still live by it. I'm not fussed by Google's wealth
+Caleb Johnson Whereas yesterday nobody could pressure someone else to become an organ donor on Facebook? Don't be stupid.


There, now Google+ is just as bad as Facebook.
Can anyone prattling about insurance companies explain what the fuck they would wnt with an organ donor list? 
Can anyone prattling about insurance companies explain what the fuck they would wnt with an organ donor list? 
Does this donation segment on your timeline run ad free? Is it also free of any metrics? It's donated, not monetized measured or sold Facebook real estate? Zuck just figured out another hook to sell and wrapped it up in a good thing to do. I'll pass. Thanks so much.
+Evy Beaucainanne, since you mentioned it, what color is your underwear? Don't worry, where not on Facebook here, it is totally different kind of social network... and Google isn't going to sell your answer to Victoria's secret. :-)
In Holland they tried to make it obligatory to 'donate your organs unless'. That was rejected. Recently government successfully tried to use Dutch social network Hyves to enlist more organ donors. They registered 35.000 extra donors in a month. It was cleverly designed. 
People should donate if they feel they should, not because they are pressured by their peers. We should allow people to sell their organs. It is, after all, their body.
Everything that is done in a public domain CAN create social pressure, facebook is a medium that the internet needed and has become the monster that everyone hates.

I can't help but feel that not only is there social pressure that will be created here, but an inherent danger too. Organ donation is a choice people make, not something that they should be pressured into by friends, family or the collective internet.
I like it, this way more people know that I am a donor and if something does happen to me, someone will say hey I know he'd like to donate. And I do not see how it would pressure someone to do it. This is my personal feelings and if you choose not too thats cool also.
I think, and after reading some comments online that people should have until they are 25 to decide if they are willing to donate their organs and if they choose not to then they don't get to benefit from being a recipient if they need on in the future and can not find a willing living donor.
Frankly the laws should be changed and everyone should be a donor by default. Then if you choose not to be a donor you request to be taken off the donors list. Most people probably wouldn't care enough to change the default and this way we as a society have the benefit of more donors.
Another invasive "add-on" if we can even call it that by Facebook. I don't need a social media network nagging me but in this instance not even nagging but actually dictating? I'm in agreement with the "opt-out" notion but on Facebook? How ridiculous is that...
Nope, totally against people being bullied into posting or doing anything.
I'm sick of facebook.
I think organ "donation" is the problem with having enough organs available to transplant. This is a concept that people seem to be unwilling to discuss.

"The 1984 National Organ Transplant Act, which prohibits payments to organ donors or their families, creates benefits in the form of feel-good ethical values at a huge cost of lives.

That's because organs must be supplied to recipients at zero price. Huge shortages are the result, as it would be if cars, homes, food, dental services and clothing had to be supplied at zero price. That's precisely the finding by Professors Randolph Beard, John Jackson and David Kaserman in their article "The Failure of U.S. Organ Procurement Policy," published in the Winter 2008 edition of the Washington, D.C.-based Cato Institute Regulation magazine.

As of 2005, there were 90,000 Americans on the organ transplant waiting list that is expected to grow to 150,000 by 2015. The authors estimate that since 1990, close to 100,000 people have already died waiting for an organ and they estimate that by 2015, that number will have grown to 196,000. Such a toll doesn't include all the pain and suffering of the waiting patient and his family."

People continue to die unnecessarily because we're afraid to look at a profit motive for healthy organs.
This sounds ridiculous.. I'm almost certain the government is having some pull in facebook anymore. Its obvious they can do whatever the hell they want with them.
+Tom W Good point. Then no bullying would be applied, it would just be the way it is.
+Kevin Bae we need to ensure that organ transplants are not available to only those who can afford to pay the donor.
+Jeremy Petzold Why? You don't believe in the freedom of individuals or property rights or both? Why are people who have less money more deserving of things and how do they get the right to tell others how to live their lives? Because they are more needed or because you'd simply like it to be that way?
The organ donation thing always seems to fail to address what seems to me to be an even better option: whole-body donation for medical research and teaching.
If they want to charge a family for my organs, take me off the list as in my eyes it is saying that that child from a poor family with very little money and who cannot afford it does not have the same right to life as some rich puke.
Well first let's all opt out of Facebook. I'm tired of Zuck and his data mining shenanigans. His actions remind me of an Aldous Huxley book.
+Jeremy Petzold You're kidding right? It was you who said "We need to insure that organ transplants are not available to only those who can afford to pay the donor". What would you call people who are not able to afford to pay the donor? I'd call them poor, by definition. Your need to insure is really a statement saying "We need to enact and enforce laws to make sure this happens. We need to be ready to send armed thugs to people's houses who violate such laws". Otherwise we don't need to do nor insure anything - the market and free people will insure or not insure based on what they wish to do - not what you wish would happen.
+Jeremy Petzold By all means explain it to me. And while you're at it, explain to me how my statements are false.
+Andrew DeFaria He said "not only those who can afford to pay the donor", i.e. not just rich people.

Which is true, everyone should have access to donated organs.
+Jon Norris But everybody has access to donated organs. Some people lack the funds. Life's not guaranteed and you don't deserve anything unless you earn it. You can be giving things by charity and that's fine. But you lost all moral bragging rights when you force others to do charity they way you see fit.
+Jeremy Petzold Just like any good that is sold organs would be expensive at first. When more people understand that their families can benefit from their deaths then more people will sign up. More supply of healthy organs the lower the price.

Think of the poor who's sole assets may be their healthy organs. Families that have no money can perhaps get a leg up (no pun intended) on life because their father or mother put themselves on an organ for sale list.
+Andrew DeFaria To flip your argument on its head for a minute, has a working class person who can't afford a transplant "earned" the right to die in a ditch?

Live in a country with a real healthcare system for a few years and I'm sure you'll change your views on who's "earned" the right to be looked after and who hasn't.
+Kevin Bae - there was an interesting article in The Atlantic about how we've let purely economic market values drive out other considerations, and how this is a flaw in current thinking. From the article:

Economists often assume that markets are inert, that they do not affect the goods being exchanged. But this is untrue. Markets leave their mark. Sometimes, market values crowd out nonmarket values worth caring about.

When we decide that certain goods may be bought and sold, we decide, at least implicitly, that it is appropriate to treat them as commodities, as instruments of profit and use. But not all goods are properly valued in this way. The most obvious example is human beings. Slavery was appalling because it treated human beings as a commodity, to be bought and sold at auction. Such treatment fails to value human beings as persons, worthy of dignity and respect; it sees them as instruments of gain and objects of use. (emphasis mine)

Read the whole article here, if you're interested in another perspective:
+Jeremy Petzold It is true that most people are selfish (as games designed by psychologists and anthropologists suggest so), but the fact is that humanity prospered in many ways by doing selfless things. Consider the fact that today the slavery is illegal anomaly, for example. We in the western world still have all means to take slaves as we did, by force or by other means. Also, to take away poor nation's riches - as we did in colonies.

We do not do that anymore, although it would boost our wealth. The question is - why we do not want to do that anymore?

Is it because of law? Law is a construct that can be bent either way: it is easy to make slavery legal.

Is it because of fear of retribution? It is very easy to take out guns and run over a country, mercilessly killing people, until they give up fighting (and then we can enslave them all and take their riches and pump their oilfields dry).

I think we do not do that because of our belief that we should not take advantage of other people or nations. It is contrary to our own selfish motives to get as rich as possible and to extend our power as much as possible.

Just as we are selfish, we can and we do give selflessly. It somehow drives progress, and we're now living in an era of very small number of wars compared to our past.

The catch is, we had to teach ourselves that selflessness and cooperation make best future possible.

I think it is the same with organ donation: it should be promoted, not regulated. We want people to get the information, to actually understand why it is so valuable for them and for society, we want them to willingly donate organs because they know and they understand the impact of their decision on other people and how it would make some great things even if they have no means to benefit from their decision.
+Jon Norris Of course he has earned the right to die in a ditch or where ever else he wants to. You have the right to die too, as does everybody else. That is what it means to own your own body.

What he has not earned is the right to live because he has not earned the necessary stuff to sustain his life. You don't get rights based on needs, they are two different concepts. Every human being must use their minds as a means to survive and must earn what is required to live. For example, you need to earn enough to get food, either through your own effort or by doing something else of value whereby you acquire the means to use that value to purchase food. Otherwise yes, you die, not because you've earned the right to die but because you failed to earn the resources to sustain your life. This is no different if what you need is a kidney or a cheeseburger.

I don't need to live in a country with a "real healthcare system" to gain some appreciation of the thievery of those who fail to sustain themselves and thereby demand to have other more productive people in society to sustain them. I have a word for such people - I call them parasites! Nobody earns the right to be looked after - to enslave others to care for them.

Look, I know somebody who needs a kidney transplant didn't ask for that nor are the necessarily responsible for the dire position that they find themselves in. But by the same token it surely doesn't make me responsible for it either! However I know I am forbidden from selling my kidney to him even if I wanted to, but I could give it to him. That's fucked up. Sure I should be able to give him my kidney but I should not be forbidden to sell it if he is willing to pay the price. Otherwise he can pay the other price - it's his choice.
OK, +Andrew DeFaria .. very slowly, ... put down the Ayn Rand book and back away. Take a few deep breaths, close your eyes and picture another human being. We'll start close to you: picture your mother, your brother, your best friend. See their face in your mind. Got it? Good.

Now think about the things that make a person valuable. Honesty? Trustworthiness? Generosity? Creativity? Note that not all of those qualities necessarily generate large sums of money. Mozart died in debt and was buried in a common grave.

How did you feel, reading that about Mozart, that someone who'se brought joy to countless generations after his death died a pauper? Do you feel a little something? That's called empathy. It's the difference between a decent member of society and, well... a parasite.

Who are parasites? I'll take one Mozart, one Ghandi, one Mother Teresa -- paupers all -- over ten thousand hedge-fund managers who move numbers from one column to another, enrich themselves, but create nothing of value for their fellow human. The fact that, were there a market, an investment banker could buy himself a new kidney every year while the next Mozart might join the last one in his common grave says nothing about which is the parasite.

TL;DR: go read the article I posted about markets. Value systems based on what you can get someone to pay for it aren't very useful. Remember the definition of a cynic: one who knows the cost of everything, but the value of nothing.
+Leonard Suskin Why should I put done any book? Or any idea for that matter? That's bullshit!

I don't happen to share your opinion that what makes a person valuable is solely things like trustworthiness, generosity and creativity. They can be useful and valuable traits, but they are hardly the be all of value. A trustworthy, generous and creative car mechanic has no value to me if they are also incompetent WRT fixing my car.

I think it's a shame that Mozart died early but that has absolutely nothing to do with your irrational and unjustified point about trustworthy, generous and creative people.

As for parasites, being non empathetic as you wrongly accuse me of has nothing to do with being a parasite. A parasite is "An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense". Even if I was non empathetic to Mozart as a creative producer of music (which couldn't be farther from the truth) I have not derived benefits at Mozart's expense (after all he did release such works to everybody of his own volition) in the slightest, nor has his early departure from life any of my doing. You're way off base here.

And I said nothing of hedge fund managers - a favorite strawman among your types which I will not entertain.

You are a parasite if you demand others provide you with a life as much as when you deprive others from living life as they see fit because you deem it not life as you see fit!

If you wish to take one Mozart, one Ghandi and one Moth Teresa (who, BTW, loved to keep people poor - Hell's Angel: Mother Teresa by Christopher Hitchens (1 of 3)) then by all means go for it! I will not stop you. But you will stop me if I wish to sell my kidney because you believe you know better than I what I can and should do with my resources.

Look, if the market was open for selling non-vital body parts then there would be absolutely nothing stopping bleeding heart liberals from donating their parts at no charge. Nobody will stop you. You will be able to life live as you see fit while still allowing others to live life the way they see fit. With freedom all viewpoints and ideas prosper. With tyranny only popular ideas are even allowed to operate and people are forcibly stopped from doing as they please.
+Andrew DeFaria I was going to type a lengthy reply but I've got other stuff to do - you're an idiot.
I'll just clarify one thing: my point was that there's a question as to how you measure the value of a person and their contribution to society, and measure whom we choose to reward. You propose a value system in which anything - up to and including life and death - can be bought and sold, and a person's only value is measured by how much money they can be given. By that measure, a hedge-fund manager who earns money is worth more than Mozart, who earned very little. It is a spectacular failure not only of empathy but of imagination.
+Leonard Suskin First show me a working human system in which anything can not be bought and sold. You will not find one. Even in the old Soviet Union the black market thrived. And do you think Steve Jobs was just lucky getting that liver transplant just in time? Given that that is the way it is why pretend?

And please keep your strawmen to yourself. I did not say that a person's only value is measured by how much money they can be given. I said how much they can earn. Big difference. However, there are many values that people possess. Money is one way of quantifying such values but it's not the only system or way to value things. It's like saying the only way to judge temperature is with a thermometer and that is a handy tool, but not the only way to measure temperature. But while the thermometer measures temperature the same for everybody, value is a much more personal evaluation that different people will make differently depending on the facts at hand in the instant case.

Nor did I say that a hedge-fund manager is worth more than Mozart. If you have a dire need for a concerto then the hedge-fund manager will do you no good. If, however, you need to purchase the necessary supplies to develop a vaccine for some illness, Mozart's not worth shit.

Value is relative and depends on the particulars and the perceived value of the individuals that are making the value judgment at the time the judgment is made. Sometimes you need a Mozart. Other times you couldn't give a flying fuck about him.
All seriousness aside... Zuckerberg just wants his Klout score to go up just another 2 points...LOL
Add a comment...