Bill would make Coloradans organ donors by default

Jan 19, 2011 By KRISTEN WYATT , Associated Press

(AP) -- Some Colorado lawmakers say their state should be the first one where people become organ donors by default, even though other states' efforts have been halted by worries about making such a personal decision automatic.

Colorado's proposal, introduced in the Legislature last week, would change the process for renewing driver's licenses and ID cards so applicants are assumed to be organ and tissue donors unless they initial a statement that says they want to opt out.

The "presumed consent" system is common in Europe and is credited with dramatically raising donation rates.

In the U.S., however, similar approaches have been defeated by lawmakers in at least three states - Delaware, Illinois and New York - because of concerns that donation programs seem coercive if they require residents to say no.

advocates hope for a warmer reception in Colorado, where nearly two-thirds of people carrying driver's licenses or state-issued IDs volunteer as donors - a higher rate than in any other state.

One of the bill's sponsors, Democratic Rep. Daniel Pabon of Denver, said the change would simply make it easier for people already willing to donate their organs when they die. The current system relies on Division of Motor Vehicles employees to ask each person who applies for a license or ID.

"This takes a bunch of people who otherwise might donate but just get in the DMV and don't want to stand in line, or they forget, and this makes it easier," said Pabon, whose uncle received a after three years on a waiting list in Iowa.

Applicants would see a statement that says, "You are automatically deemed to have consented to being an organ and tissue donor and this designation will appear on your driver's license or identification card."

Opponents of Delaware's 2008 bill called it an intrusion into people's privacy that treats organs as commodities. People against the opt-out method argue that presumed consent could force someone to become a donor against their will. Some people fear a medical team won't work as hard to save them if there is a greater benefit to harvesting the organs.

Pabon noted that Coloradans already seem to embrace organ and tissue donation with a donor volunteer rate that leads the nation, even though the state doesn't offer discounts on state IDs for donors, as some states do. About 65.6 percent of people with Colorado licenses or IDs, or more than 2.9 million people, are volunteer donors, state officials said.

"This issue is one that's ripe for Colorado," Pabon said of his presumed consent proposal.

Despite Colorado's donation-friendly environment, organ donation advocates say the state still doesn't have enough donors to meet demand.

"After people pass away, there's a way to save nine lives, 10 lives with organ and tissue donations," said Steve Farber, a Denver attorney who received a kidney transplant from his son and co-wrote "On the List: Fixing America's Failing Organ Transplant System."

Farber, who founded the American Transplant Foundation, hasn't yet taken a position on Colorado's opt-out proposal. Even if Colorado raises organ and tissue donations through an opt-out system, there would still be a shortage because medical demand far outpaces supply, he said.

Arthur Caplan, of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Bioethics, agreed that waiting lists aren't going away.

"The demand for organs is growing so fast that even if we do this, we're not going to meet the shortage," said Caplan, one of the nation's most prominent supporters of opt-out donation programs.

He had some advice for Colorado lawmakers supporting the change: Replace the "presumed consent" title on the bill with a better-sounding "default to donation." Caplan says the phrase "presumed consent" sounds Orwellian to some.

"When you use the word 'presumed' it sounds like you're just going to take the organ, and that doesn't sound good," said Caplan, who last year argued in favor of New York's failed attempt at presumed consent.

Explore further: Strategies can help docs lower their tax burden

More information: Senate Bill 42: http://goo.gl/MlKSw

3.7 /5 (3 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

British drivers asked to become organ donors

Dec 31, 2010

Anyone applying for a driving licence in Britain will be asked if they want to join an organ donation scheme under new proposals to boost the number of donors, it was announced on Friday.

Recommended for you

The human race evolved to be fair for selfish reasons

Sep 19, 2014

"Make sure you play fairly," often say parents to their kids. In fact, children do not need encouragement to be fair, it is a unique feature of human social life, which emerges in childhood. When given the o ...

Non-stop PET/CT scan provides accurate images

Sep 18, 2014

Siemens is improving PET/CT imaging and data quality while reducing radiation exposure. The Biograph mCT Flow PET/CT scanner is a new positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) system that, ...

Experts: Chopin's heart shows signs of TB

Sep 17, 2014

The preserved heart of composer Frederic Chopin contains signs of tuberculosis and possibly some other lung disease, medical experts said Wednesday.

User comments : 106

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Doug_Huffman
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 19, 2011
Caplan says the phrase "presumed consent" sounds Orwellian to some.
Presumed consent is Orwellian. That the state has any claim to one's parts is beyond Orwellian, it is the ultimate socialism ending in Soylent Green.
dogbert
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 19, 2011
Presumed consent, opt out, default to donation are all terms denoting state seizure of your body. It is Orwellian and it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Next will be harvesting organs from prisoners which will be followed by efforts to increase the numbers of criminals.

The socialist idea that anyone has any right to anything which belongs to you is a bankrupt and corrupt idea. When extended to your body it is an abomination.
Caliban
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 20, 2011
Presumed consent, opt out, default to donation are all terms denoting state seizure of your body. It is Orwellian and it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution.

[...]

The socialist idea that anyone has any right to anything which belongs to you is a bankrupt and corrupt idea. When extended to your body it is an abomination.


Get ahold of yourself, there, dogbert.

You certainly seem to enjoy throwing words about without them having any connection to reality.

I don't see you decrying "presumed consent", "opt out", "default", and here -I'll add another for you-"negative option" as methods for socialist corporations to separate unwilling/unwitting citizens from their money, or the constitutionality of those practices, so why don't you dial down the rhetoric, and say that it is a matter of "the consent of the governed" rather than a "legitimate power of government" to decide?

That way, you'll lessen the urge for anyone to tighten your leash.
frajo
3 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Caplan says the phrase "presumed consent" sounds Orwellian to some.
Presumed consent is Orwellian. That the state has any claim to one's parts is beyond Orwellian, it is the ultimate socialism ending in Soylent Green.
If you replace "socialism" by "capitalism" you are completely right.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Presumed consent, opt out, default to donation are all terms denoting state seizure of your body. It is Orwellian
Yes.
and it is a violation of the fourth amendment to the U.S. constitution.

Next will be harvesting organs from prisoners
No, not next. Where do you think that German guy who is showcasing dead bodies got the bodies from?
which will be followed by efforts to increase the numbers of criminals.
Yes.

The socialist idea that anyone has any right to anything which belongs to you is a bankrupt and corrupt idea. When extended to your body it is an abomination.
It's not a socialist idea. You've been lied to.
Doug_Huffman
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
Exchanging socialism and capitalism beggars the meanings (exhausts words of significance).

Which is to say, for some, words mean things while others use their own dictionaries.
rproulx45
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, if you're dead, why would anyone care what they do with your body? Does "Gee-sus" require proof of kidney ownership. I told my wife when I'm dead they can gut me and they can stuff me. She said to me, that she didn't want to be an organ donor, I said tough, it's not your call to make seeing as how you'll be dead at the time.The individual loses the rights to the body upon death.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 20, 2011
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, if you're dead, why would anyone care what they do with your body? Does "Gee-sus" require proof of kidney ownership.


Different people have different beliefs.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
If you replace "socialism" by "capitalism" you are completely right.


So in capitalism the STATE would own your organs and not some evil greedy running dog pig CEO?

You can't even get your OWN bullshit straight frajo...

It's not a socialist idea. You've been lied to.


Yes it is a socialist idea. You've been lied to...

In fact a socialist idea is that nothing belongs to YOU. Uh, that's why it's called SOCIALism.
Simonsez
5 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
@ rproulx45
Correct me if I'm wrong here

Ok.
The individual loses the rights to the body upon death.

You're wrong. Provided the individual has written into their legal and binding will, and secured the services of someone who will perform the duty, one can determine what will happen to the body which, after their departure from it, technically becomes a former possession just like a favorite pair of shoes, a box of antique coins, etc. to be disposed of (properly). Naturally, there are laws in place to ensure a body IS disposed of properly, but anyone has a right to sue on behalf of the estate of the deceased if the body is appropriated without consent.
frajo
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
So in capitalism the STATE would own your organs and not some evil greedy running dog pig CEO?
Capitalism is an environment where the big companies have the say via the government they own.

It's not a socialist idea. You've been lied to.
Yes it is a socialist idea. You've been lied to...

In fact a socialist idea is that nothing belongs to YOU. Uh, that's why it's called SOCIALism.
That's your definition of socialism, not the socialists' definition. You're lacking the necessary competence to deliver a meaningful definition of socialism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (33) Jan 20, 2011
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, if you're dead, why would anyone care what they do with your body? Does "Gee-sus" require proof of kidney ownership.


Different people have different beliefs.
But if you die without heirs and havent made provision for your own disposal, this task falls on the state by default. Doesnt matter what your beliefs used to be.

It seems to me that this is just a reasonable extension of that process- its just another line on your will. If you havent taken the time to make one, then your carcass is theirs whether whole or in pieces. Makes sense to me.

Only religionists and others who elevate dogma over substance would see a problem with this. Transplants save lives, and these would help the less advantaged to receive one.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
But if you die without heirs and havent made provision for your own disposal, this task falls on the state by default. Doesnt matter what your beliefs used to be.


He asked why people would care. I gave a reason.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jan 20, 2011
Capitalism is an environment where the big companies have the say via the government they own.


That would be fascism. Capitalism is the separation of government and economics...much like the principle of separation of church and state. It doesn't exist on this planet.

That's your definition of socialism, not the socialists' definition. You're lacking the necessary competence to deliver a meaningful definition of socialism.


You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. Socialism is by definition collective ownership (if such a thing is possible) of the means of production and allocation of resources. There is, in essence, no private property. There is no "you" in socialism, just as there is no "we" in capitalism.

This exists nowhere on the planet either.

There is a reason neither exists on the planet. Neither of those political structures is sufficient to provide a stable socio-political system for human beings.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
Another example of socialism. The state owns you.

just as there is no "we" in capitalism.

Of course their is. Capitalists need customers and must satisfy them to stay in business.
Govts need not satisfy anyone and use force to stay in business and take everyone's property.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 20, 2011
just as there is no "we" in capitalism.

Of course their is. Capitalists need customers and must satisfy them to stay in business.
Govts need not satisfy anyone and use force to stay in business and take everyone's property.


There is only "we" in capitalism to the degree in which people's ends coincide. It's a collection of "I's" it's a subtle, but not unimportant distinction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (33) Jan 20, 2011
...it is the ultimate socialism ending in Soylent Green.
Actually, the ruin in Soylent Green is apparently due to capitalist excesses, a popular media theme back then:

"Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation, including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates." The newest product is Soylent Green..."

-One recalls the scene in Rollerball when wealthy drunken partygoers go out and fry a tree with a laser gun. It's the sort of propaganda which generates the attitudes such as:
Capitalist democracy is an environment where the big companies have the say via the government they own.
-I happen to agree. Unrestricted, capitalist democracy is more corruption-prone than any form of govt save despotism. But what we think of as capitalism resembles the real thing very little. It is heavily regulated by the govts we can see, and fully controlled by the One we can't.
dogbert
1.2 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
rproulx45,
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but, if you're dead, why would anyone care what they do with your body? Does "Gee-sus" require proof of kidney ownership. I told my wife when I'm dead they can gut me and they can stuff me. She said to me, that she didn't want to be an organ donor, I said tough, it's not your call to make seeing as how you'll be dead at the time.The individual loses the rights to the body upon death.


OK. Let me correct you.

1) You don't own me. You don't own my remains. And you have no right to any part of me. I may choose to donate organs to you, but you have no right to demand them.

2) You should understand that organs are normally taken from people before they die. That is, the heart is beating and the person is breathing. This is done to minimize the possibility of organ deterioration. So it is not just a question of what happens to me when I die, it is a question of what happens to me if I am deemed to be an organ donor.

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
the ruin in Soylent Green is apparently due to capitalist excesses,

That's because the writers are anti-capitalist socialists.
Unrestricted, capitalist democracy

How can capitalism be unrestricted when capitalists must PERSUADE people to trade their money for the product or service?
Governments must FORCE you to trade your money for their 'products' and 'services'.
There is only "we" in capitalism to the degree in which people's ends coincide. It's a collection of "I's" it's a subtle, but not unimportant distinction.

Again, if a goal of a capitalist is to NOT satisfy his customers, how long will he stay in business without help from some govt 'help'?
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
How can capitalism be unrestricted when capitalists must PERSUADE people to trade their money for the product or service?


Again, this is the central fantasy that informs all your intentionally misleading rants.

Unless you, yourself are in a position to manufacture your own food, clothing, shelter, clean water, and possibly electricity, then you DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO GIVE YOUR MONEY to Mr. Capitalist.

It is simply incomprehensible that you are unable or unwilling to understand this very basic, very simple, very essential concept.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 20, 2011
DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO GIVE YOUR MONEY to Mr. Capitalist.

There is more than one capitalist.
Its simply incomprehensible that you are unable or unwilling to understand this very basic, very simple, very essential concept.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Jan 20, 2011
DON'T HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO GIVE YOUR MONEY to Mr. Capitalist.

There is more than one capitalist.
Its simply incomprehensible that you are unable or unwilling to understand this very basic, very simple, very essential concept.


And ultimately, there will be fewer in any given industry, until their operational numbers approach zero, at which point, you are again(as if not from the beginning) forced to give your money to Mr. Capitalist, who may not now, if ever, offer a product that is superior in any way shape or form from that of his "competition".

Pretty soon, most people won't have any choice other than shopping at walmart. Which is in no way a function of superior competition or products, but rather a symptom of the severely reduced circumstances brought about by policies based upon those same idiot freemarket fantasies which you uncontrollably spew day after day.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Capitalism is an environment where the big companies have the say via the government they own.
That would be fascism.
Yes. Fascism is the perfection of capitalism.
Capitalism is the separation of government and economics...much like the principle of separation of church and state. It doesn't exist on this planet.
The really existing capitalism is the revolving door principle between government and companies.
That's your definition of socialism, not the socialists' definition. You're lacking the necessary competence to deliver a meaningful definition of socialism.
You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.
Semantics are not factual.
Socialism is by definition collective ownership (if such a thing is possible) of the means of production
That's better.
and allocation of resources.
This one you got wrong.
There is, in essence, no private property.
This one is marjonesque.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
How are you guys saying this is orwellian? Every law on the books is implied consent. Are you expecting anarchy as the norm?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Yes. Fascism is the perfection of capitalism.


Actually Fascism is more akin to socialism. It's just that the bosses and lackeys switch places in the respective ideologies. In capitalism the state is divorced from economics...the antithesis of the fascist/socialist model.

Semantics are not factual.


So do we define a murderer as someone who has murdered someone or is it just an error of semantics if we arrest people who don't fit this definition?

If semantics "aren't factual" then you are a capitalist...just because I say so...

This one you got wrong.


It's in the definition, sorry if it doesn't agree with YOUR definition, but the rest of the world frankly doesn't give a shit Frajo...

This one is marjonesque.


Did you have some logic to back that point up, or just ad-hom/equivalency bullshit as usual?

Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
How are you guys saying this is orwellian? Every law on the books is implied consent. Are you expecting anarchy as the norm?


Implied consent to save your life and implied consent to harvest your organs are two completely different things...neh?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
How are you guys saying this is orwellian? Every law on the books is implied consent. Are you expecting anarchy as the norm?


Implied consent to save your life and implied consent to harvest your organs are two completely different things...neh?

It's a matter of information.

If they're telling you upfront that the default is donor, then I don't have a problem with it.

If they're not tellingyou that you have granted implied consent and/or making it difficult to opt out, then I have an issue with it, and at that time I deem it Orwellian.

I was referring more to things like lane violation laws in traffic, and the right of way for pedestrians.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
If they're telling you upfront that the default is donor, then I don't have a problem with it.


I do. The default on taking something from you should always be NO action, until EXPLICIT consent is given...always.

It sets a HORRIBLE precedent, especially by the state. This is the kind of shit I'd expect from a company trying to scam you out of a service you don't want to pay for every month, but hey you didn't "check the box" saying you didn't want it...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
I do. The default on taking something from you should always be NO action, until EXPLICIT consent is given...always.
Well they restrict your action without your consent and that's how the state actually operates, otherwise you have lawlessness.

I understand your concerns, but I think this is more of an emotional response than a reasoned one. (and I'm not trying to take the piss with that comment, just trying to show my perspective in contrast)
This is the kind of shit I'd expect from a company trying to scam you out of a service you don't want to pay for every month, but hey you didn't "check the box" saying you didn't want it...
That happens constantly. I just learned to look for the box to check.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
No I get what you're saying SH, it's a titch melodramatic. For me anyway it's just that whenever I fill out a government form in future years I don't want to have to scan for every check box and make sure I didn't miss the one that says they get all my money when I die as opposed to my kids.

Stretching the point...well honestly I don't know. Some of the shit I've seen this government do, I don't trust them. That's why people fly off the friggin rails every time some seemingly innocuous thing like this comes up...because it has a tendency to become not so little and less innocuous over time.

As for the scamming company I don't think we should have to learn to look for the check box. I think we should start calling it what it is...theft or fraud, and putting folks in the stripey hole for a few years for pulling that kind of crap.

Just my two cents, and reasonable people can certainly disagree here.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Yeah I don't think you'll get much disagreement. For me, the organ donor thing should be similar to the social security form your parents fill out, something that can be subsequently changed.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
That happens constantly. I just learned to look for the box to check.

Opt out programs are designed to fail. If, for example, you have a medical emergency while you are not in possession of your driver's license, you will be deemed to have agreed to organ donation even when you have "opted out". There is no certain way a person can "opt out" and know his directions will be followed. This is intentional. The purpose of "opt out" is to disenfranchise everyone.

Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
If, for example, you have a medical emergency while you are not in possession of your driver's license, you will be deemed to have agreed to organ donation even when you have "opted out".
That's not accurate within the context of what has been discussed. YOu cannot say that is the process if the law does not establish that process. You're making it up as the worst case scenario without evidence of probability or even possibility after making a sweeping statement on an unrelated aspect of the former conversation.

Why?
CHollman82
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Who needs that liver more, a child who's liver is failing or a DEAD MAN...?

What do you jesus freaks think you'll need your livers for in heaven? Do you think heaven has a liver exchange program where you can get an extra harp or something?

For christ sake, once you're dead you aren't a person and therefore have no rights or property anyway... Do you want your liver going to your children or grandchildren, maybe they can put it in a jar of preservatives and keep it on their nightstand.

Bunch of wierdos... worried about where your liver goes after you're DEAD. This type of bullshit comes from the ridiculous idea that you somehow continue after death, though I still don't understand because clearly your body doesn't...
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Wow...just, wow. Eat your prozac, or lithium, or whatever the hell it is that allows you to function with some semblance of normality because right now you're in the land of crazed bat shittery.

You don't own any firearms do you? No of course not your a leftist...thank God...
CHollman82
2.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Wow...just, wow. Eat your prozac, or lithium, or whatever the hell it is that allows you to function with some semblance of normality because right now you're in the land of crazed bat shittery.

You don't own any firearms do you? No of course not your a leftist...thank God...


Tell me what you plan to do with your kidney after you are dead that is more important than saving the life of a 12 year old little girl on a dialysis machine, I'd really like to know...

If it were up to me organ donation would be mandatory. A corpse has no rights just as a rock has no rights... a corpse is closer to a rock than it is to a human being in that regard and many others.
CHollman82
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Oh, and I do own firearms actually... My favorite is a S&W 500 magnum revolver, though it's a bit painful to fire.
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
Tell me what you plan to do with your kidney after you are dead that is more important than saving the life of a 12 year old little girl on a dialysis machine, I'd really like to know...


I know this concept is extraordinarily hard to grasp for fascist prigs like you but I'll try to put it in words a three year old can understand...come close now and pay attention....NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS! It's got nothing whatsoever to do with you, I'm not State property you IGNORANT self righteous ass...

We clear now? The meds kicking in yet?

If it were up to me organ donation would be mandatory. A corpse has no rights just as a rock has no rights... a corpse is closer to a rock than it is to a human being in that regard and many others.


Thankfully it isn't up to you. Hopefully VERY few things that effect other human beings are up to you, because you clearly have no concept that most children grasp at about four years. Little things like "mine", "yours", (cont)
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
(cont) there is another concept that BABIES actually understand. I watched a documentary on child development once and a child at about the age of one year understands that what HE likes and wants isn't necessarily what YOU like or want.

Good luck grasping that, it's an important tool in what we call "the social skills"...
CHollman82
2 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS!


So the answer is nothing... you're not going to do anything with your kidney, it will rot in the ground, and the little 12 year old girl will die of renal failure.

How christianly of you...

Thankfully it isn't up to you. Hopefully VERY few things that effect other human beings are up to you, because you clearly have no concept that most children grasp at about four years. Little things like "mine", "yours", (cont)


There is no such thing as "yours" after you are DEAD... what is it about DEATH that you don't understand? You cease to exist as a human being, you have no rights to property OTHER than to distribute your assets to loved ones, so unless you want to give little Timmy your kidney in a preservative jar... YOU DON'T FUCKING NEED IT.

What a selfish son of a bitch you are, depriving someone of their life because you want the organs that they need to rot in the ground or be incinerated.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Dude you're on the shelf with marjon as far as I'm concerned. You're an unqualified halfwit with no respect for other human beings, their rights, or their feelings. You are worthy of no further effort.

...there are batshit crazy people on the left too...
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Dude you're on the shelf with marjon as far as I'm concerned. You're an unqualified halfwit with no respect for other human beings, their rights, or their feelings. You are worthy of no further effort.

...there are batshit crazy people on the left too...


Says the person who would rather their kidney rot in the ground than go to save a child's life.

You're pathetic and should be ashamed of yourself.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
pssst....I'm an organ donor, I live in a state were you have to check the box in order to BE one...

I just have this crazy concept that other people own their bodies, even after they are dead. How we treat our dead and the respect we give them is actually one of the things anthropologists look for that separates higher culture from barbarism...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Tell me what you plan to do with your kidney after you are dead that is more important than saving the life of a 12 year old little girl on a dialysis machine, I'd really like to know
SOme people, by religious or cultural practice must be complete when they're disposed off. Of course this is one of the groups that believes in sawing part of a boy's penis off, but that's besides the point.
CHollman82
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
I just have this crazy concept that other people own their bodies, even after they are dead. How we treat our dead and the respect we give them is actually one of the things anthropologists look for that separates higher culture from barbarism...


This is religious nonsense, brought about by the idea of an afterlife. As an atheist, I would prefer to be thrown to the wolves, my body is a hunk of meat after I am dead and since I have consumed many animals in my life I might as well return the favor.

We should not patronize ignorance, I don't care if someone thinks their body will be brought up to heaven intact and will be walking around in the clouds... they are wrong. Their body will decompose, and living people NEED the raw material to survive. One is clearly more important than the other.

Saving peoples lives vs. allowing someone to choose for their organs to rot in the ground based on their ridiculous and ignorant beliefs...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
We should not patronize ignorance, I don't care if someone thinks their body will be brought up to heaven intact and will be walking around in the clouds... they are wrong. Their body will decompose, and living people NEED the raw material to survive. One is clearly more important than the other.

Saving peoples lives vs. allowing someone to choose for their organs to rot in the ground.
Yeah well you don't exactly get to tell people what to do with their bodies, dead or alive, regardless of what YOU believe either.
CHollman82
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
SOme people, by religious or cultural practice must be complete when they're disposed off. Of course this is one of the groups that believes in sawing part of a boy's penis off, but that's besides the point.


I understand this, and so the question becomes whether we should patronize and tolerate ignorance, and at what expense?
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Yeah well you don't exactly get to tell people what to do with their bodies, dead or alive, regardless of what YOU believe either.


Go tell a young child that they will die waiting for a kidney on the organ donor list because someone believes their kidney is somehow important after they die, even though we know for a FACT that it will do nothing but rot with the rest of their body.

Go do that, tell them "I'm sorry, a match has been found but it's going to be buried in the ground to rot instead of being used to save your life... I bet you change your position... I bet you break down and cry with the child after telling them that they are going to die.
CHollman82
5 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
The above scenario happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
The above scenario happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.

People die every day in car accidents.
Children are dying every day due to socialist govt control of their country.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
So when you DIE you don't have any rights according to CH. So why bother with wills? Why not give every dead person's possessions to the state? Or to whomever CH thinks should get them, because he OBVIOUSLY knows best for everyone.

Now what's more personal to a human being...their possessions or their BODY?
CHollman82
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
So when you DIE you don't have any rights according to CH. So why bother with wills? Why not give every dead person's possessions to the state? Or to whomever CH thinks should get them, because he OBVIOUSLY knows best for everyone.


I didn't say this, in fact I said the exact opposite of this, that you can and should be able to give your wealth to your descendants or loved ones... including your organs IF they need them...

But, you know I said this, you are constructing a red herring... or is that a strawman, I confuse those two.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
The above scenario happens EVERY SINGLE DAY.

People die every day in car accidents.
Children are dying every day due to socialist govt control of their country.


What's your point? Since some people die it's okay to let others die when we can prevent it easily?

How many of you have children? How many have dealt with the loss of a child?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Yeah well you don't exactly get to tell people what to do with their bodies, dead or alive, regardless of what YOU believe either.
Go tell a young child that they will die waiting for a kidney on the organ donor list because someone believes their kidney is somehow important after they die, even though we know for a FACT that it will do nothing but rot with the rest of their body.
Go tell a dead six year old's parents that you're going to harvest their dead child like cattle as soon as they expire.
Go do that, tell them "I'm sorry, a match has been found but it's going to be buried in the ground to rot instead of being used to save your life... I bet you change your position... I bet you break down and cry with the child after telling them that they are going to die.
Grow up. An appeal to emotion doesn't work on rational people.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
And ultimately, there will be fewer in any given industry,

Why?
Without govt interference, the only way the number of competitors fall is by providing better products at lower prices. That is what Standard Oil did for kerosene until Edison invented the electric lamp.

I shop at Wal Mart because they sell the rice we like. No one else does. I go to other grocers for products they have.
The current economy is NOT the result of free markets. It is the result of stupid govt interference in markets as I have pointed out many times.
CHollman82
3 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Go tell a dead six year old's parents that you're going to harvest their dead child like cattle as soon as they expire.


I would love to. I would love to have the opportunity to convince someone to help save another child's life, because by denying them that they are only serving to pass their misery on to another innocent person.

Grow up. An appeal to emotion doesn't work on rational people.


Tell me, what is rational about letting your organs rot when people need them to save their life's??

You deign to speak of rationality to me as you advocate waste at the expense of death. I've got an idea, let's all take a trip to Ethiopia with huge feasts and then, in front of starving children, dump it all on the ground and walk all over it and rub dirt into it and light it on fire... RATIONAL!

(about as rational as taking an organ that someone needs to save their life and burying it)
CHollman82
1 / 5 (1) Jan 21, 2011
I wonder how many deaths you will ultimately contribute to by simply voicing this opinion of yours... think about it, who knows how many people read this, probably a lot more than those that comment. Imagine if a few of them agree with you and decide not to be an organ donor... or reinforce their prior opinion... imagine the people that they would have saved, that will now die young, because of you. Imagine the countless family members that will lose a loved one, the children that will lose their parents, the husbands and wife's that will lose their spouses... Does that make you feel good? Who knows the untold misery you are ultimately responsible for by publicly voicing this opinion that people should let their organs rot in the ground rather than being used to save lives.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
You deign to speak of rationality to me as you advocate waste at the expense of death. I've got an idea, let's all take a trip to Ethiopia with huge feasts and then, in front of starving children, dump it all on the ground and walk all over it and rub dirt into it and light it on fire... RATIONAL!
So you're going to open a mailbag of utterly terrible things if you want to say this is logically consistent.

You have two kidneys, go donate one, give up a testicle and a cornea while you're at it.

We're going ot have to have a chat about that spare lung you got too.

After all, you can get by without em.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
So you're going to open a mailbag of utterly terrible things if you want to say this is logically consistent.

You have two kidneys, go donate one, give up a testicle and a cornea while you're at it.

We're going ot have to have a chat about that spare lung you got too.

After all, you can get by without em.


Are you conflating a living human with a dead corpse?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 21, 2011
Are you conflating a living human with a dead corpse?

How far are willing to go?
That kid with a severe mental illness doesn't really need that organ does it? After all, it is severely disabled and it can be harvested to help a real human.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 21, 2011
Yes. Fascism is the perfection of capitalism.
And I thought that National Socialism was the perfection of socialism? I do know that hatred of capitalism and of authority in general can give rise to armed rebellion and communism, depending on the depth of your acceptance of the propaganda youve been given.

@dog
1) You don't own me. You don't own my remains. And you have no right to any part of me. I may choose to donate organs to you, but you have no right to demand them.
And you dont own you after youre dead. A trust can own your carcass, or your relatives, or the state by default, anybody BUT you. Because you dont exist any more and therefore have NO rights.
cont
CHollman82
2.7 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Are you conflating a living human with a dead corpse?

How far are willing to go?
That kid with a severe mental illness doesn't really need that organ does it? After all, it is severely disabled and it can be harvested to help a real human.


Slippery slope argument doesn't really apply here since the distinction between a living human and a corpse is not an arbitrary one...
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 21, 2011
2) You should understand that organs are normally taken from people before they die. That is, the heart is beating and the person is breathing. This is done to minimize the possibility of organ deterioration.
Did you actually research this before posting? No you didnt:
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting

-You ought to, you know, to avoid looking silly, even if youre partially right.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
So you're going to open a mailbag of utterly terrible things if you want to say this is logically consistent.

You have two kidneys, go donate one, give up a testicle and a cornea while you're at it.

We're going ot have to have a chat about that spare lung you got too.

After all, you can get by without em.


Are you conflating a living human with a dead corpse?

So when you expand the parameters of the hypothetical it's ok, but I can't do the same?

DO you understand what I said prior when I told you this opens up a massive argument?

There is one thing on this planet that I own without question, and that's me, whether I'm dead or alive. If I choose to donate, which I do, then good. If I choose not to, too bad for you.

When you start telling people what will happen, rather than allowing the option, it isn't slippery slope, it's totalitarian in nature.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Are you arguing that you can own things when you are dead or that you should be allowed to own things when you are dead?

I know you aren't religious... so I am trying to figure out what "you" you think exists after death in order to own something... Or if you think that ownership doesn't require a life... can rocks own things?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 21, 2011
Are you arguing that you can own things when you are dead or that you should be allowed to own things when you are dead?
No, I'm not, but I'm telling you that your authority over my former meat suit is nonexistent. My former authority over it commands the disposal of said body by law.

If you don't like that, that's too bad. Get some like minded people together with you and get the law changed. Until then, don't make emotional appeals for authority over me, THAT is religious nonsense.
CHollman82
1 / 5 (2) Jan 21, 2011
Are you arguing that you can own things when you are dead or that you should be allowed to own things when you are dead?
No, I'm not, but I'm telling you that your authority over my former meat suit is nonexistent. My former authority over it commands the disposal of said body by law.

If you don't like that, that's too bad. Get some like minded people together with you and get the law changed.


Oh, I am not arguing about what the current law says...
dogbert
2 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,

The links you provided and the implication that I did not research the issues were worthless. I did not do a wikipedia search because I already know the issues. I don't need wikipedia to enumerate them. And as I said, the preferred harvesting method is to harvest the organs while the subject is still breathing and his/her heart is still beating.

Now a question for you. You can choose to donate your organs. No one will seek to prevent you from donating your organs. Do so if you want. Why do you feel the need to steal organs from other people? Anyone who wants to give is quite able to do so. Anyone who has not "opted in" obviously does not want to "opt in". So why do you want to steal from other people?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 21, 2011
Get some like minded people together with you and get the law changed.

Ever the populist.
Mob rule over principles.
should be allowed to own things when you are dead?

Money is still being made by dead people: Elvis, John Lennon, Michael Jackson, ....
There is one thing on this planet that I own without question, and that's me,

Not according to popular law. If you did really own yourself, the state could not force you to work for a minimum wage or confiscate the products of your labor.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 21, 2011
I just heard, every blood donation saves 3 lives.
Govt needs to start forcing people to donate blood by CHollman's logic.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Anyone who has not "opted in" obviously does not want to "opt in". So why do you want to steal from other people?
The ottos are manifestations of a pathological domination freak who'd use and misuse anything (be it atheism, be it religiousness, be it myths, be it history, be it SF) within his reach to try to justify his domination claims.
james11
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
I completely agree with Skeptic on this. I will donate but I will also refuse just about anything you demand of me simply because you are demanding. Aren't we supposed to be able to print organs relatively soon anyways?
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
And ultimately, there will be fewer in any given industry,

Why?
Without govt interference, the only way the number of competitors fall is by providing better products at lower prices. That is what Standard Oil did for kerosene until Edison invented the electric lamp.

I shop at Wal Mart because they sell the rice we like. No one else does. I go to other grocers for products they have.
The current economy is NOT the result of free markets. It is the result of stupid govt interference in markets as I have pointed out many times.


And you have repeatedly failed to acknowledge that the market allows, and encourages the use of many different types of leverage in order for Company A to aquire the market share of Company B.

Ever hear of Mergers & Acquisitions?

These manouvers lead to LESS COMPETITION, and ultimately fewer providers of goods, and less choice -good or bad- for the purchasers of those goods.

Stop pretending that the market fixes everything.

Moebius
1 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Why does anyone care what happens to your organs or body after you're dead? YOU'RE DEAD!!! What are you an Egyptian RA worshipper? Want your organs in a jar buried with you? Since when is implied consent with the option to say no socialism? And if your religious beliefs say you can't donate your organs say no or get a new false religion to fill that empty spot inside you where a brain normally goes.

Everyone that uses the word socialism like it's a 4 letter word is an idiot and everyone one of you uses socialism every day, it's what separates our society from anarchy. Who would maintain the roads, pay for a police force or the military? Amazing how the ignorant can demonize a word or concept they don't agree with.
frajo
not rated yet Jan 23, 2011
Why does anyone care what happens to your organs or body after you're dead? YOU'RE DEAD!!! What are you an Egyptian RA worshipper? Want your organs in a jar buried with you?
Yes, I wouldn't like the remains of my loved partner to be chopped up for some intransparent usage except if it was his/her wish. I claim the priority rights to his/her remains. Society would have to ask me first if they want them.
Everyone that uses the word socialism like it's a 4 letter word is an idiot
I wouldn't use the word "idiot".
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
These manouvers lead to LESS COMPETITION, and ultimately fewer providers of goods, and less choice -good or bad- for the purchasers of those goods.

Where are the examples. Surely with all the recent consolidations, you should be able to provide examples.
Govt Motors shut down Pontiac, Saturn, Olds yet there are still many choices for autos.

They Syrian traders understand economics. The host of Bizarre Foods tried camel. One business killed the animal. In the souk, another butchered it and yet another business cooked the food. It is a fine example of division of labor/comparative advantage.
Nature has found div of labor and specialization to be quite effective. What Higher Authority regulates nature.
Nature demonstrates how an economy prospers. Why do Cali, SH and others here believe a higher authority is required to regulate an economy? Do they believe God regulates nature and therefore the state must control an economy?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
it's what separates our society from anarchy

Socialism separates our society from anarchy?
The socialists here love to raise the example of Somalia. Under no formal govt, the people were better off than under socialism.

There may be hope for Obama: "Government should not intrude on private family matters,"
Actions speak louder with words.

Since when is implied consent with the option to say no socialism?

It assumes the govt owns your body.
ekim
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
It assumes the govt owns your body.

Who does own your body after you die?
Your family?
Nature?
God?
How much time should pass before parts of who you were can be used again?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
It's funny to watch how the free marketeers are afraid of people stealing their organs because they didn't read the fine print, but they're perfectly ok with someone stealing your home, car, money, and livelyhood because you didn't read the fine print.

Sad.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
It assumes the govt owns your body.

Who does own your body after you die?
Your family?
Nature?
God?
How much time should pass before parts of who you were can be used again?

Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 23, 2011
The links you provided and the implication that I did not research the issues were worthless.
Now dog, if you had known the particulars you would have worded your post differently. People have to be legally dead before their organs are taken, so that the process won't 'kill' them.
So why do you want to steal from other people?
Actually I don't much care either way. Obviously, the dead cannot express their preference for disposal, and if they have not done so in some fashion while alive, then rather than leave the corpse lying around for the rodents or organ thieves, the state has ALWAYS had the responsibility of disposal. Potters field. If a person didn't care enough while they were alive, why should they care if they're dead?
The ottos are manifestations of a pathological domination freak
:-) I try not to lump people like all Frajos into one group. I relinquish control of that to somebody else. Commie misandrist auslander.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 23, 2011
-Neither does otto wear leather untertragen.

"Property and Possession Rights
In the ordinary use of the term, a property right does not exist in a corpse. For the purpose of burial, however, the corpse of a human being is considered to be property or quasi-property, the rights to which are held by the surviving spouse or next of kin. This right cannot be conveyed and does not exist while the decedent is living. Following burial, the body is considered part of the ground in which it is placed."
http
://lawbrain.com/wiki/Corpse
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923,
Now dog, if you had known the particulars you would have worded your post differently. People have to be legally dead before their organs are taken, so that the process won't 'kill' them.


I only said that organs were preferentially taken while the person's heart is beating and he/she is breathing. The concept of "brain dead" was developed so that doctors could remove people from the machines which were keeping them alive and to allow removal of organs while the "donor" is breathing and has a beating heart.

Now why not answer my question? Why do you want to steal what others obviously do not want you to take. You say "I don't care" after arguing to do just that. You are either lying when you argue for theft of organs or you are lying when you say you don't care.

Perhaps frajo pegged you right.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 23, 2011
"With the increasing ability of the medical community to resuscitate people with no respiration, heartbeat, or other external signs of life, the need for a better definition of death became obvious. This need gained greater urgency with the widespread use of life support equipment, which can maintain body functions indefinitely, as well as rising capabilities and demand for organ transplantation."

-Is why the concept "brain death" was devised.
Why do you want to steal what others obviously do not want you to take.
But otto has no need at present for viable organs as he is not sick and is not building a homunculus at the moment.
You say "I don't care"
And I will say again- I dont care. I am only stating what tradition and existing laws already say, as to the disposition of unspoken-for corpses, which I go on to document. Do you think that the state taking the responsibility for burying unspoken-for corpses is theft? Theft from who(m)? Dog?
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.1 / 5 (32) Jan 23, 2011
If you want to change what you believe to be the laws regarding the disposition of remains, dont you think you might want to know what those laws are first? Im no lawyer (and neither are you) but it seems pretty clear that the state owns corpses and beneficiaries or designees only have the right to bury them.

And if frajo is right about otto then it would be one of the few things frajo is right about. In ottos estimation.

Or if we want to know about corpses we could ask these guys:
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_wWwRZ8gfg
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
It's funny to watch how the free marketeers are afraid of people stealing their organs because they didn't read the fine print, but they're perfectly ok with someone stealing your home, car, money, and livelyhood because you didn't read the fine print.

Sad.


Maybe I misunderstood your position, but you seemed to be OK with people scamming others in the private sector who didn't "look for the check box". How is it different with government either? That argument cuts both ways....

Again, unless of course I misunderstood your position...
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
Maybe I misunderstood your position, but you seemed to be OK with people scamming others in the private sector who didn't "look for the check box". How is it different with government either? That argument cuts both ways....

Again, unless of course I misunderstood your position...
You did.

As I said above, I have no problem if the opt in opt out is well advertised and regulated. The problem comes when the option becomes a scam through obfuscation of the default or obfuscation of the ability to opt out. Complex contracts are a form of obfuscation, and the financial industry requires them to function.
dogbert
3 / 5 (5) Jan 23, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
The problem comes when the option becomes a scam through obfuscation of the default or obfuscation of the ability to opt out.


Since no one can be assured that their desire to "opt out" will be honored in an environment where "opt in" is the default, the very concept of "opt out" is a scam.

"Opt out" is always a scam. Always. "Opt out" programs are used to violate the wishes of people who have not "opted in".

A few years ago there was a test of a blood substitute. The substance would be used on anyone in a medical crisis who had not "opted out" of the test. Of course, there was no certain way to "opt out". Many people were infused with this substance and subsequently died. The trial of that so called "blood substitute" was stopped and that substance no longer used because of the increase in deaths associated with it. It was set up as an "opt out" trial by our government because no one in his/her right mind would have "opted in".
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Since no one can be assured that their desire to "opt out" will be honored in an environment where "opt in" is the default, the very concept of "opt out" is a scam.
Why can't they be assured? You make the assertion but never support it.
A few years ago there was a test of a blood substitute. The substance would be used on anyone in a medical crisis who had not "opted out" of the test. Of course, there was no certain way to "opt out". Many people were infused with this substance and subsequently died. The trial of that so called "blood substitute" was stopped and that substance no longer used because of the increase in deaths associated with it. It was set up as an "opt out" trial by our government because no one in his/her right mind would have "opted in".
This doesn't make sense. How exactly can they perform a medical trial on you with an experimental substance without telling you?

Let's see some evidence for this claim.
dogbert
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,
Why can't they be assured? You make the assertion but never support it.


I have, but I'll do it again. How do you propose to insure that your "opt out" status is informed to the trauma center after an accident? Your wallet with driver's license may have been lost or destroyed in the accident. Even if you tattoo the "opt out" notice on your body, that portion of your body may have been destroyed or rendered unreadable during the accident. And why should the trauma physicians go to great lengths to determine that you have "opted out" when they want to take your organs. In an environment where "opt in" is the default, absent evidence to the contrary, the physicians will take your organs. If it is later seen that you "opted out", there will be no repercussions because the physicians assumed the default. There is absolutely no way you can insure your "opt out" status.

dogbert
3 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic continued...,
This doesn't make sense. How exactly can they perform a medical trial on you with an experimental substance without telling you?

Let's see some evidence for this claim.


You really don't have a clue, do you? Never believe anything anyone tells you, demand proof, and then you won't change your position a millimeter after you are given proof.

http:
//www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-04-28-fake-blood-risks_N.htm

or, Google it yourself.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 23, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic continued...,
This doesn't make sense. How exactly can they perform a medical trial on you with an experimental substance without telling you?

Let's see some evidence for this claim.

You really don't have a clue, do you? Never believe anything anyone tells you, demand proof, and then you won't change your position a millimeter after you are given proof.
I'll state that the practice employed by those researchers is absolutely unacceptable. All you have to do is prove the assertion. I agree that this is misconduct and a breach.

There is absolutely no way you can insure your "opt out" status.
The same way they do it in other states that have an organ donor default of "in". No license, no identity, no harvesting allowed.
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
The same way they do it in other states that have an organ donor default of "in". No license, no identity, no harvesting allowed.


But that is not how "opt out" works. You must have available your "opt out" status at the time your status is important.

In medical care, the default is assumed unless there is a reason to vary from the default. For example, it is assumed you want CPR unless you notify the medical center otherwise because CPR is the default.
Moebius
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
Give that ignorant socialism line to a member of your family who is dying and can't find an organ donor. It always amazes me how many people are completely unable to put themselves in someone else's predicament, they have to have it hit home before they understand. They aren't talking about cutting peoples bodies up, good mischaracterization, they are talking about removing organs and saving other peoples lives.

But you're right, it is wrong. There needs to be a caveat for morons like some of the posters here, if you don't donate you don't receive either. I'm sure you anti-socialists all have the courage of your convictions.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 23, 2011
They aren't talking about cutting peoples bodies up, good mischaracterization, they are talking about removing organs and saving other peoples lives.

How else are organs removed? Bodies must be cut up.
Give that ignorant socialism line to a member of your family who is dying and can't find an organ donor. It always amazes me how many people are completely unable to put themselves in someone else's predicament,

This reinforces the socialism 'line' as socialist use appeals to emotion.
If your rich neighbor in town has the money you need for a life saving operation, you you must force him to save the life of your child. You need his money more than he does, right?
ekim
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.

Sounds like slavery.
Selling people or parts of people.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
The same way they do it in other states that have an organ donor default of "in". No license, no identity, no harvesting allowed.


But that is not how "opt out" works. You must have available your "opt out" status at the time your status is important.

In medical care, the default is assumed unless there is a reason to vary from the default. For example, it is assumed you want CPR unless you notify the medical center otherwise because CPR is the default.

You're incorrect. Having a default selection on your license doesn't create an automatic "slice and dice" when it comes to organs.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.

Sounds like slavery.
Selling people or parts of people.

Not if the owner is you. When the state is the owner, as many seem to prefer here, then it is slavery.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.

Sounds like slavery.
Selling people or parts of people.

Not if the owner is you. When the state is the owner, as many seem to prefer here, then it is slavery.

More ridiculous bullshit, tell us how the state owns you once you sign an organ donor card Marjon.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.

Sounds like slavery.
Selling people or parts of people.

Not if the owner is you. When the state is the owner, as many seem to prefer here, then it is slavery.

More ridiculous bullshit, tell us how the state owns you once you sign an organ donor card Marjon.

That was not the question. Pay attention.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Let's take the free market solution and sell organs.
Sounds like slavery.
Selling people or parts of people.

Not if the owner is you.
Exactly in this case the "owner" is object of the wealthy and greedy ones who use to know no moral & no mercy when demanding debts to be paid. They'll ask for his organs, for his kids' organs, and for the services of his daughters. They are doing this already in India.
Slavery is a consequence of unregulated free markets.

And the Indian state is too weak to stop the social misery because he has obliged itself to the global capitalists.

When the state is the owner, as many seem to prefer here, then it is slavery.
Off-topic. Pay attention.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 24, 2011
Not if the owner is you. When the state is the owner, as many seem to prefer here, then it is slavery.
More ridiculous bullshit, tell us how the state owns you once you sign an organ donor card Marjon.
That was not the question. Pay attention.
Certainly was the question, I'm the one who asked it. Going to answer it or are you going to continue to make yourself look like a fool?
fixer
not rated yet Jan 24, 2011
So, who needs these organs anyway?
People with faulty organs right?

But most of these people die before an organ becomes available, are their organs harvested?

Do I see a "value of life" scale happening here?
dogbert
2 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic,

But that is not how "opt out" works. You must have available your "opt out" status at the time your status is important.


You're incorrect. Having a default selection on your license doesn't create an automatic "slice and dice" when it comes to organs.


You are being disingenuous. That is precisely why there is a push to change from "opt in" to "opt out". Under "opt out", the default becomes to harvest organs. Opt out is designed to forcibly take organs from individuals how have not chosen to donate [who have not "opted in"].

If you choose to argue otherwise, answer this question: Why do you want and "opt out" system if it does not change the way organs are harvested?

You argue for an "opt out" system simply because you want to forcibly remove organs from people who have chosen not to "opt in".
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Jan 25, 2011
You are being disingenuous. That is precisely why there is a push to change from "opt in" to "opt out
No, the change from opt in to opt out is to get more people enrolled. A lot of people just accept the defaults and don't consider it in the least because they don't care. If this gets more people aware of the ability to opt out, which isn't explained above, and you automatically assume totalitarian evil, then I'm fine with it.

You argue for an "opt out" system simply because you want to forcibly remove organs from people who have chosen not to "opt in".
Nice. Make yourself look like a conspiracy nut, then start making paranoid statements blaming people you're talking to.
frajo
not rated yet Jan 25, 2011
You argue for an "opt out" system simply because you want to forcibly remove organs from people who have chosen not to "opt in".
These are unjustified assumptions.

However, even when nobody wants it it will happen. Like collateral damages - nobody wants them, many regret them, but nearly everybody accepts them.
This is a slippery slope which begins with a general disrespect for weaker social environments and ends with soylent green.
Neglect (and every administrated utilization) of the deceased and their social surrounding is one of the strongest indicators for societal decline.