If I’m not mistaken, legislation in New York that would automatically enroll people as organ donors with the option of opting-out later is an example of “libertarian paternalist” choice architecture. One of the authors of Nudge suggests an alternative to so-called “presumed consent” laws here:
Fortunately, there is another possibility, called “mandated choice,” under which people must indicate their preference. In Illinois, where I live, this system has been in use since 2006 and doesn’t seem to have ruffled many feathers.
Here is how it works: When you go to renew your driver’s license and update your photograph, you are required to answer this question: “Do you wish to be an organ donor?” The state now has a 60 percent donor signup rate, according to Donate Life Illinois, a coalition of agencies. That is much higher than the national rate of 38 percent reported by Donate Life America
More info on “presumed consent” organ donation laws here.
Another Democrat bringing the nanny state to fruition. Why not allow for the sale of organs? God forbid we turn to the capitalism for answers.Report
It seems the clear upshot of this post, then, is that the architecture is adaptable to public preferences (opt-out/opt-in as compared to “mandated choice,” which is obviously a complete misleading name for a policy in which officials are merely “mandated” to ask you your preference, with neither opt-in nor opt-out being the default). This hardly seems like a condemnation.Report
I’m curious what the spectrum is here as government gets more involved in what it think the choice should be: for example, by providing a little blurb after the organ donation question that says how many children were saved by organ donors alongside a picture of a smiling child; or, more drastically, by waving the license processing fee, etc.Report