# FILE NAME: 00000814.soc
# TITLE: Should we have an opt-out or an opt-in system for organ donation? [b1730168c1384db28e99d85c0082946f]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation. This is because organs are a very personal thing, and it is very important that people are in control of what happens to their body after they die. There is also the issue that in an opt-out system, people may not know that they are on the organ donor list, and this could cause problems for their family after they die. However, the group did recognise that an opt-out system could increase the number of organs available for donation, and this would be beneficial for people in need of an organ transplant. The group felt that in order to increase the number of organs available for donation, the government should put more effort into making people aware of the importance of organ donation, and the benefits that it could have for others. This would make people more likely to opt-in to the organ donor list.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-in system for organ donation, as it allows people to have freedom over their body and choice if they want to help others. This would also allow people to make a more informed decision about whether they would like to donate their organs or not, and make the quality of the organs better. However, some people argued that an opt-out system would be beneficial as it would increase the number of organs available for donation, as many people who are willing to donate their organs may not take the time or effort to explicitly opt-in. This could potentially save many lives and reduce the waiting time of patients in need of a transplant.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, however there were some reservations. The group felt that an opt-out system could lead to a higher number of organ donations and would reduce the burden on people to register to become donors. However, the group also felt that the system could lead to a decrease in the quality of organs, as people who were not in the best of health would still be able to donate their organs. This could lead to a decrease in the number of people who would be able to receive the organs, as the organs would be rejected. The group felt that this was a very important consideration and could be detrimental to the system. The group also felt that it was important to have a system that respected individual autonomy and human dignity, and thus felt that the opt-out system could be in conflict with this. The group also felt that it was important to consider the feelings of the family of the deceased, as they may not want their loved one to be a donor. The group felt that the opt-in system was more in line with this, and thus the group felt that the opt-in system was the more ethical system.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, the group was in favour of an opt-out system, but with a caveat that individuals should be able to opt-out if they wish to. The group believed that having an opt-in system is very time consuming, and is difficult to manage. The group believed that an opt-out system would be more efficient, and would increase the number of organs available for transplantation. The group also believed that having an opt-out system would reduce the amount of paperwork and bureaucracy that doctors have to go through when a patient dies. However, the group also believed that it is important to give people the option to opt-out, as some people may not want their organs to be donated.
2: 1,2,3,4
2: 3,1,2,4
1: 3,4,1,2