this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
26 points (90.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

47213 readers
1658 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I live in Austria where every person is an organ donor and you have to opt-out of it. Even children are donors if their parents don’t opt them out. As a result, more than 99% of Austrians are organ donors. It never occurred to me that it could be the other way around.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] disregardable@lemmy.zip 36 points 1 day ago

Experts generally agree that requiring to people to opt-out significantly increases participation. Most people don't care either way.

[–] nathan@piefed.alphapuggle.dev 25 points 1 day ago

If I've kicked it I don't see any reason my organs can't help someone else

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago

Opt-out is the best way. Greatly increases the supply of available organs but allows people not to participate if they don't want to.

[–] stefenauris@pawb.social 14 points 1 day ago

When I'm dead it won't fucking matter what happens to my body because I'm dead. I won't be there to care. If my body parts help people then that's great!

[–] KarlHungus42@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think that’s great. It’s incredibly selfish to not be an organ donor. The whole, “They will let me die to give my organs to someone important” argument is ludicrous.

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

They will let me die to give my organs to someone important” argument is ludicrous.

Really depends where you live and how your government treats you.

EDIT: Uighur genocide exists and yet people doubt this? Palestinian genocide? It's very easy to not be a "citizen" in the eyes of the current ruling party.

[–] Tiresia@slrpnk.net -1 points 1 day ago

I don't think it's ludicrous on the face of it. That's basically what happens when an uninsured person dies from something that would have taken $10k to fix and an insured person gets their organs.

Doctors only get in trouble for letting someone die when that person has a medical right to the care that would have saved them. Even then there is leeway because whether someone has a medical right to that care is often something that depends on a doctor's estimation of the situation, which means other doctors would have to testify against them for them to get in trouble. Which of course they'll only do if they are sympathetic to the victim or unsympathetic towards the doctor and they know it won't affect their career prospects too poorly.

So I wouldn't be surprised if in Austria, ethnically MENA organ donors tended to die more often than ethnically MENA non-organ donors and this gap would be bigger than with ethnically European donors/non-donors (if that gap exists). Not even as some kind of conspiracy or malice aforethought, but as just a little bit of laziness here and there. Hell, not even laziness, just setting your boundaries for once and going home after only 2 hours of overtime instead of 2 hours and 15 minutes while ordering an extra test for that one patient who probably doesn't even need it.

There is still the question whether you want to deprive someone of your organs for that small statistical increase in risk, if you're even the sort of demographic that risks being dehumanized. And if you're worried about malpractice, it's much better to buddy up with a friend and agree to supervise the doctors and nurses whenever either of you is in the hospital. Most malpractice and medical mistakes are the sort of thing a lay person can catch with some attentiveness and internet searches.

Organ donation just makes sense. If my organs can help someone else after I’m done with them then why not? What doesn’t make sense is that in states/places where abortion isn’t legal, corpses have more bodily autonomy than pregnant women

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

Opt out seems fair.

You're dead. You don't need whatcha got anymore.

[–] _NetNomad@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago

take 'em, i ain't using 'em anymore!

[–] DaMonsterKnees@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

If you raid my colony, your left kidney, right lung, and liver are mine. One Lemmings opinion.

Looks like the rimworld community escaped containment.

[–] daychilde@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Joke's on you. I'm on dialysis because of my failed kidneys, I have fluid in my partially collapsed lungs, and… well… actually, my liver is alright for now, so I guess that might not be too bad for ya.

My take is take what you want. I'll be dead and will have no need for the organs.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I even wonder if the opt out is reasonable. I understand being sad, but "go ahead and die, I want worms to eat my {kid's, wife's, husband's} kidney" is a weird thing to (implicitly) say.

[–] Nikls94@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

It is as easy as going to any doctor and having it added to your file. No reason, just "I don’t want that"

[–] cattywampas@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think people should be able to decide what happens to their remains after they die. I'm fine with automatic registration and the ability to opt out.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago

As long as it automatically disqualifies them from ever receiving a transplant.

Just take it.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I know it's irrational, but there is a tiny voice in the back of my head going "what if the ancient Egyptians were right, and you'll need your liver or eyes or whatever in the afterlife?" even though currently right now living and breathing I couldn't tell you what my liver does for me other than I need it to stay living.

[–] FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

I live in Austria where every person is an organ donor and you have to opt-out of it. Even children are donors if their parents don’t opt them out. As a result, more than 99% of Austrians are organ donors. It never occurred to me that it could be the other way around.

Having a system like this is good, because "the other way around" does feasibly have room for them to 'give up on you' and harvest your organs. But living in a place where 99% of people will donate organs means there's no room for this doubt.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I'm having trouble with trusting such a system...

I mean if a politician or some rich dude is in need of an organ that you happen to have... I don't trust the doctors to not just... let you die...

Like in House of Cards...

I don't trust it here in the US, I mean look at the politics.... so corrupt.

And I definitely-definitely don't trust this for China... the way my parents decribe their interactions with doctors in Mainland China... like the most sketchy people you could meet... I mean... these are the heathcare workers that would perform abortions against the mother's will if the government told them to... (during the One Child Policy stuff...) so yeah they'd happily let you die if it meant some government official can get their organ. Nope. There's no way people there would trust it... so much 碰瓷 ("broken vase" scams), low-trust society...

[–] starman2112@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

For the most part, I'm unconcerned. Especially in a country where organ donation is opt-out, there are plenty enough people dying already; the rich don't need to kill me specifically for my liver. There's another one floating around somewhere out there. Any potential corruption would take the form of the rich and powerful placing themselves at the top of the recipient list, a problem which is also reduced if organ donation is opt-out—more organs floating around means that even if the rich and powerful put themselves at the top of the list, more people will still get the organs they need.

Re: China, that's a different situation entirely. I don't think those forced abortions were opt-in or opt-out. The Chinese government doesn't seem to give its subjects many opts at all

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The best argument I have against that happening is that the people saving lives are not the people who manage the donor list. If you're in a car accident and paramedics arrive, they see an injured person, and they treat the injuries. They don't see the list of who needs an organ, they probably don't even check your ID until theyve stabilized you. They will take you to the hospital, where someone else will attempt to stabilize you, or determine that you cannot be saved. And even then, they'll send you to someone else to harvest the organs, and send those to someone else who determines where they are needed.

There is no single person who decides if your organs are worth more than your life. And if one person does try to make that call, there are a lot of others involved they may not let it happen, and acting out of procedure will raise a lot of questions.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Okay fine maybe for the US where the free press still seems to be okay (barely limping through)

In China... all info is controlled. They can sweep irregularities under the rug. Censorship...

I mean look at how they handled covid... they tried to jail doctors who tried to blow the whisle.

So I still wouldn't okay an "opt out" system for China until they start becoming more transparent.

[–] Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Possibly. I can't speak to how things work over there, but you shouldn't have to worry in the US.

[–] it_depends_man@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I would be totally fine with it.

The problem is that it is factually worth a lot of money. Saving a life, either through an organ or by blood donations because they're needed for surgery, is nearly impossible to evaluate.

And lots of people need stuff that isn't blood or organs. If I need a car, or place to live and someone in society dies and has a car or a place to live and that's not being given to me, but instead it's turned into cash and assets.

That's asymmetric.

Now I'm not saying I'm entitled that society should just give me everything I want. So I wouldn't call it "unfair".

But on the other hand, giving away organs and blood, completely for free, is a bit much.

That's why I'm against it.