Organs to be taken without consent

[JackC 0]

Jakee, my objection isn't whether it's a taxation or a charitable gift, my objection is that the emphasis is moved from giving (opt-in) to taking (opt-out). If I want to DONATE my organs that's my business. I do not want to be conscripted into it. If it was anything other than giblets, I'll bet you wouldn't be too happy about it either.

[Royd 0]

Are you also going to force people to wear some kind of moniter to alert the system if they drop dead in the middle of the night, alone?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

No. And whuh?

We're talking about govt control over your dead organs. Unless they are still in good condition at the point of removal, the whole point is moot. Therefore, since the govt. is in charge of your organs, they would require you to wear a moniter.

Just to be an ass, shouldn't the rest of the body be used as dog or cat food. After all, the idea of a decent burial is so yesterday.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Jakee, my objection isn't whether it's a taxation or a charitable gift, my objection is that the emphasis is moved from giving (opt-in) to taking (opt-out). If I want to DONATE my organs that's my business. I do not want to be conscripted into it. If it was anything other than giblets, I'll bet you wouldn't be too happy about it either.

But it is giblets, you will not be conscripted into giving them and the state does take from pretty much everything else you own.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

We're talking about govt control over your dead organs.

No, we're not. We're talking about changing from opt in to opt out consent for organ donation. You're still in control of what happens.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

But it is giblets

So what? You still can't steal them. It's not the item in question, it's the shift in the law that allows the government to take stuff without explicit given consent.

Quote

you will not be conscripted into giving them

That is exactly what it is. It moves the emphasis from "give" to "take". Right now the proposal is permission by default with next of kin consent. Next they'll remove the next of kin consent, then the'll remove the option to opt out. It is unnecessary because the current system can be improved without the need to step on anyones rights. The numbers support this.

Quote

the state does take from pretty much everything else you own.

And you would see them take even more. Just because they already do it, doesn't mean they have an automatic right to take more. You cannot conscript people into giving no matter how much you like the cause.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

So what? You still can't steal them. It's not the item in question, it's the shift in the law that allows the government to take stuff without explicit given consent.

Again, the government is in the business of taking things without consent, and it isn't stealing. If you see the government taking things without explicit consent as some kind of seismic shift in the balance of power then I honestly don't know what world you live in.

Quote

That is exactly what it is. It moves the emphasis from "give" to "take". Right now the proposal is permission by default with next of kin consent. Next they'll remove the next of kin consent, then the'll remove the option to opt out.

I don't agree with that either. The emphasis on giving is already indicated by every poll out there. I could even say that this is a rare example of the government putting forward legislation that actually reflects the wishes of the electorate.

Quote

You cannot conscript people into giving no matter how much you like the cause.

Again, the current proposal is not conscription. That's simply a strawman. Consistent use of strawmen is not a good indication of a strong position.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Darius11 12]

The Government should have no say on people donating their organs.
It is absolutely preposterous for the government to assume they have the right to take your organs unless you stated otherwise. To assume permission unless otherwise specified is absolutely ridicules and especially wrong if the government is doing it.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Skyrad 0]

I totally support this idea and have been wanting it to happen for years.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[livendive 8]

Quote

It moves the emphasis from "give" to "take". Right now the proposal is permission by default with next of kin consent. Next they'll remove the next of kin consent, then the'll remove the option to opt out.

Clearly that is the case, as we can all see that those things happened in Spain and France. And every Spanish and French citizen has to wear a monitor too, so the government knows when to collect their organs, right?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

So when you die (not for some time I hope), I'm welcome to waltz into your ex-home and take your shit?

That stuff would be left to someone in my will. It would be valuable and useful to them. I can't think of any use or real value my organs would have to my family, unless they're planning on selling them on the black market.

And if you didn't have a will?

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So when you die (not for some time I hope), I'm welcome to waltz into your ex-home and take your shit?

That stuff would be left to someone in my will. It would be valuable and useful to them. I can't think of any use or real value my organs would have to my family, unless they're planning on selling them on the black market.

And if you didn't have a will?

It would become the property of the state. Oops.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[labrys 0]

Quote

It would become the property of the state. Oops.

Huh? Where?

Owned by Remi #?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Again, the government is in the business of taking things without consent, and it isn't stealing. If you see the government taking things without explicit consent as some kind of seismic shift in the balance of power then I honestly don't know what world you live in.

Just because the government takes taxes doesn't mean I have to be happy about them taking more. I can't beleive that you actually think that because the government takes some taxes, they should be able to take anything they want. Rediculous.

Quote

The emphasis on giving is already indicated by every poll out there. I could even say that this is a rare example of the government putting forward legislation that actually reflects the wishes of the electorate.

If the urge to give were as strong as you suggest, the government wouldn't need to float this idea, people would be giving already. Either they are lazy, in which case make signing up easier, or they aren't as into the idea as they say they are. Gordon Brown himself says that improvements are possible in the UK system without changing to presumed consent. He even voted against this change in 2004. Why should he change his mind now?

Quote

Again, the current proposal is not conscription. That's simply a strawman. Consistent use of strawmen is not a good indication of a strong position.

Joyce Robins of Patient Concern, a group that promotes independence for health service consumers, apparently disagrees with you (link). She said that a system based on presumed consent turned volunteers into "conscripts" and this was not a solution to the problem of donor shortages. I agree with her. Volunteering someone for something without their consent is fairly well covered by the word "conscript".

Anything that makes a choice for the individual by default is not a good thing in my view. If I want to DONATE that's my choice. It should not be expected. Presumed consent is actually no consent at all and you cannot suggest that it is.

[rushmc 18]

Do you see any similarities (of this thread) in regards to who teaches what to whom, (in high school) and how it is taught?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Just because the government takes taxes doesn't mean I have to be happy about them taking more. I can't beleive that you actually think that because the government takes some taxes, they should be able to take anything they want. Rediculous.

Not as ridiculous as you saying that anything the government takes is stealing. And again, this is all stemming from your ridiculous strawman argument that the government is going to be forcing people to give them their organs, which they fucking aren't.

Quote

If the urge to give were as strong as you suggest, the government wouldn't need to float this idea, people would be giving already. Either they are lazy, in which case make signing up easier, or they aren't as into the idea as they say they are. Gordon Brown himself says that improvements are possible in the UK system without changing to presumed consent. He even voted against this change in 2004. Why should he change his mind now?

Have you read my posts on this thread? I have noted several times that the number of people hypothetically in favour of organ donation is far in advance of the number of people who are registered donors. I have noted several times that I think this is because they simply don't feel strongly enough or are too lazy to actually register. I don't see why you feel the need to ask for this information which I have recorded at several places on this thread. I also see no problem with taking an otherwise completely useless thing from a dead person who didn't give a shit if it was taken from him. If he did give a shit it wouldn't get taken.

Quote

Joyce Robins of Patient Concern, a group that promotes independence for health service consumers, apparently disagrees with you (link).

Whoopde-do.

Quote

Anything that makes a choice for the individual by default is not a good thing in my view.

A choice is already being made for the individual by default. I've pointed this out.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

A choice is already being made for the individual by default. I've pointed this out.

No choice is being made for any individual. What's happening now is that if there is no evidence of a choice, then there is no donation.

Owned by Remi #?

[JackC 0]

Quote

A choice is already being made for the individual by default. I've pointed this out.

And it's the correct choice as I've pointed out. Unless I tell you different, you cannot help yourself to my stuff.

[nigel99 151]

I think the core issues are:

As Jackc pointed out & I like the 100% inherentance tax example. When the government starts programs such as this where you have to opt-out it moves the onus onto us as individuals. I can easily imagine this government proposing taxes and the like where you have to opt-out of them. They will manipulate the system to their ends.

Secondly a number of people whose beliefs or preferences want them to be "whole" after death are likely to be violated in an automatic system as the inevitable loss of their opt-out will render them donors. A mixup of this nature would be very traumatic for the living relatives of such people.

I also think that as Nerdgirl brought up artificial sources will become a "better" replacement in the medium term and would personally prefer to see development and effort put in that direction.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

And it's the correct choice as I've pointed out. Unless I tell you different, you cannot help yourself to my stuff.

It's not me. It's the state. You seem to be confusing interpersonal dynamics with state/citizen dynamics.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

As Jackc pointed out & I like the 100% inherentance tax example. When the government starts programs such as this where you have to opt-out it moves the onus onto us as individuals. I can easily imagine this government proposing taxes and the like where you have to opt-out of them. They will manipulate the system to their ends.

There is absolutely noreason to believe that an opt-out system in organ donation will lead to massive opt-out taxation, or indeed have any effect on taxation whatsoever. In fact, the precedent already exists in taxation, where there are numerous loopholes, exemptions, credits and the like that are available to you but not automatically done for you.

Quote

I also think that as Nerdgirl brought up artificial sources will become a "better" replacement in the medium term and would personally prefer to see development and effort put in that direction.

These technologies are not yet available and there is an immediate need for organs. Also, this proposal would have absolutely zero effect on the development of those technologies. It's not a case of 'we can either have an opt out system or we can develop alternative technologies'.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

It's not me. It's the state. You seem to be confusing interpersonal dynamics with state/citizen dynamics.

The state does not get to do whatever the hell it wants just because it isn't a person. The state is still bound by the law. They cannot take stuff from you unless the law allows it. The difference is that the government can change laws they don't like. That does not make the government automatically right. My point is still valid.

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

The state does not get to do whatever the hell it wants just because it isn't a person.

No, but it gets to do a hell of a lot more than a person does.

Quote

That does not make the government automatically right.

They're not automatically wrong when they take stuff from you either, as a person would be.

Quote

My point is still valid.

No. You purposefully chose your words to indicate an interpersonal dynamic (what I can do to you). It's intentionally and extremely misleading.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

No. You purposefully chose your words to indicate an interpersonal dynamic (what I can do to you). It's intentionally and extremely misleading.

It wasn't intentional and I appologise if you thought it was. I'll rephrase: Unless I tell the person/organisation/charity/football team/book club/porn site different, they cannot help themselves to my stuff. Governments do it and I have to accept it. That doesn't mean I have to like it or that I'm not going to make my views known.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

shouldn't the rest of the body be used as dog or cat food.

Oh no, soylent green will be much more in demand.

Gosh, 170 messages since I posted this yesterday - it's turned into a real controversy.

Government intrudes into so many aspects of our lives, the one thing that we ought to retain control over, above all else, is our own darned bodies. I don't want 'em doing anything with my body unless I expressly grant them permission. Otherwise, they can keep their hands off of me!

[jakee 1,265]

Quote

Government intrudes into so many aspects of our lives, the one thing that we ought to retain control over, above all else, is our own darned bodies.

The propsed system wouldn't take control over your body away from you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?