Now The Liberals Are After My Organs...

[guacamole]

They already do that. If you don't have a will (opt out) and no next of kin, the government takes all of your assets.

I will be next of kin for anyone here who doesn't have anyone to inherit their assets. But not their "assets." Also, ancestral curses don't count.

[Sparko]

I think it is a bad idea to automatically take someone's organs without express permission. I do believe organ transplants are important and I am a donor (and recipient) but I would never want the organ of someone who didn't expressly donate it (or their family if they were unable).

Next stop, mandatory death penalties for any crime in order to feed the organ banks. ala "The Patchwork Girl"

[guacamole]

I parse it out like this:

I can keep my organs after I die ==> or I can save a life. I will save a life.
I can allow people to waste their organs after they die ==> or society can take a pro-life position. I would push for the pro-life position.

Is it better to save the organs of a person who, perhaps selfishly, doesn't want to give them up, even though they cannot use them, or is it better to save the life of a person who might die without the organs.

Easy-peasy.
Save a life.

fwiw,
guacamole

ps: It helps if we don't automatically characterize everything as the diabolical libruhl state stealin' all our stuffs.

[Sparko]

I parse it out like this:

I can keep my organs after I die ==> or I can save a life. I will save a life.
I can allow people to waste their organs after they die ==> or society can take a pro-life position. I would push for the pro-life position.

Is it better to save the organs of a person who, perhaps selfishly, doesn't want to give them up, even though they cannot use them, or is it better to save the life of a person who might die without the organs.

Easy-peasy.
Save a life.

fwiw,
guacamole

ps: It helps if we don't automatically characterize everything as the diabolical libruhl state stealin' all our stuffs.

and since you are all knowing and all benevolent we should all let you decide what is right. for everyone.

[guacamole]

and since you are all knowing and all benevolent we should all let you decide what is right. For everyone.

took you guys long enough!

[Sparko]

also you may not know this but you can only be an organ donor under very special circumstances. They have to harvest your organs while you are technically still alive (brain dead but on life support) - because it takes many hours to harvest all of the organs and they have to be kept alive during the process. So if you die at home or anywhere else but in a hospital, there is very little likelihood that they can use your organs. Maybe your tendons and tissues, but not your organs. Which is one reason why organs are in such short supply.

and since you are in the hospital, it would be a good bet that either you or your family would be available to decide to donate or not donate your organs, so making a mandatory donor law really wouldn't help much except in cases where you were brought in in a coma and they could not reach any family at all. That's pretty rare. So this law will not really increase the number of organs available much at all. Maybe a little bit, but at the expense of a person's wishes in some cases which is wrong.

[The Thinker]

Just opt out and your fine. Jeez.

[Jedidiah]

I parse it out like this:

I can keep my organs after I die ==> or I can save a life. I will save a life.
I can allow people to waste their organs after they die ==> or society can take a pro-life position. I would push for the pro-life position.

Is it better to save the organs of a person who, perhaps selfishly, doesn't want to give them up, even though they cannot use them, or is it better to save the life of a person who might die without the organs.

Easy-peasy.
Save a life.

fwiw,
guacamole

ps: It helps if we don't automatically characterize everything as the diabolical libruhl state stealin' all our stuffs.

Even though I suspect Gerbz was being less than accurate about his feelings, I agree with what he wrote. And I do not see this as a pro-life position at all.

[Meh Gerbil]

You honest to God don't know what is wrong with people like me? The pro-life position here?

Nice red herring.

The baseline position assigned to all citizens is a right to privacy and a right to private property.
It is so ingrained into how we think as Americans that the phrase: "I borrowed your car because you didn't tell me I couldn't" appears ridiculous.
The assumption is that my private property is under my control (or under my heirs control) unless I state otherwise.

So this law is 180 degrees out of phase with the basic governing philosophy this country was founded upon.

The concept of helping people who needs organs isn't the point of contention here.
The concept of the government default granting itself property rights that force people to opt out is flat out anti-freedom.

[Meh Gerbil]

Just opt out and your fine. Jeez.

Just register to vote and get a free I.D. card.
Jeez.

[guacamole]

also you may not know this but you can only be an organ donor under very special circumstances. They have to harvest your organs while you are technically still alive (brain dead but on life support) - because it takes many hours to harvest all of the organs and they have to be kept alive during the process. So if you die at home or anywhere else but in a hospital, there is very little likelihood that they can use your organs. Maybe your tendons and tissues, but not your organs. Which is one reason why organs are in such short supply.

I found this article useful to clarify several key points, since I am not a doctor:

http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/death/

And while they mention cardiac death in this snippet, I suppose that is true for any sort of death involving heart stoppage, but otherwise not generalized organ failure:



At the end of the article, they write:



I don't know if it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, but it's interesting that there are times that organ donation can occur after cardiac death and we can still get useful organs, especially frequently transplanted organs.

Aparently, according to this article, https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-donor-organs/, there is a well documented correlation between mandatory helmet laws for motor cyclists and reduced organ donations. A grim point of trivia, to be sure, but if organ donations have fallen because of helmet laws, then it would seem like they are trying to make up for it in other areas.

and since you are in the hospital, it would be a good bet that either you or your family would be available to decide to donate or not donate your organs, so making a mandatory donor law really wouldn't help much except in cases where you were brought in in a coma and they could not reach any family at all. That's pretty rare. So this law will not really increase the number of organs available much at all. Maybe a little bit, but at the expense of a person's wishes in some cases which is wrong.

We do a lot of things at the expense of a person's wishes. I'm not troubled by that terribly much. If this very minor liberty--a novel one, as far as I know, is going to keep us from saving lives, then I would argue we give up this very minor liberty.

fwiw,
guacamole

[guacamole]

Nice red herring.

It is so ingrained into how we think as Americans that the phrase: "I borrowed your car because you didn't tell me I couldn't" appears ridiculous.

Irrelevant to this case, where you are dead, and your heirs not inheriting your organs as property.

The assumption is that my private property is under my control (or under my heirs control) unless I state otherwise.

No. Your body is not your property to dispose of as you wish, whether you are alive or dead. This is why you cannot go and sell your own organs while alive. To assert otherwise is wishful thinking on your part.

So this law is 180 degrees out of phase with the basic governing philosophy this country was founded upon.

The concept of helping people who needs organs isn't the point of contention here.
The concept of the government default granting itself property rights that force people to opt out is flat out anti-freedom.

The concept of helping people is indeed the point of contention here, because, like in so many other areas, personal liberty is in tension with general welfare.

fwiw,
guacmaole

[Sparko]

I found this article useful to clarify several key points, since I am not a doctor:

http://www.organtransplants.org/understanding/death/

And while they mention cardiac death in this snippet, I suppose that is true for any sort of death involving heart stoppage, but otherwise not generalized organ failure:



At the end of the article, they write:



I don't know if it's pie-in-the-sky thinking, but it's interesting that there are times that organ donation can occur after cardiac death and we can still get useful organs, especially frequently transplanted organs.

Aparently, according to this article, https://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-donor-organs/, there is a well documented correlation between mandatory helmet laws for motor cyclists and reduced organ donations. A grim point of trivia, to be sure, but if organ donations have fallen because of helmet laws, then it would seem like they are trying to make up for it in other areas.



We do a lot of things at the expense of a person's wishes. I'm not troubled by that terribly much. If this very minor liberty--a novel one, as far as I know, is going to keep us from saving lives, then I would argue we give up this very minor liberty.

fwiw,
guacamole

I may be just paranoid but I worry about the slippery slope. If this type of legislation passes what could be next? Perhaps you can't opt out? Perhaps they decide that the state has the right to decide that a person in a coma or on life support is more valuable as parts than as a person and decree that they have to become a donor while they are still in a coma or in a vegetative state. Or they decide that like in the book I mentioned, they decide that they should give the death penalty to more criminals in order to take their organs, and then start giving the death penalty for more and more crimes. After all a criminal is just costing the state money, when as a donor he could be saving lives.

When the government can take control of our very bodies, there is nothing stopping them from doing whatever the hell they want in the name of "helping us"

[The Thinker]

Just register to vote and get a free I.D. card.
Jeez.

Citizens should be automatically registered upon turning 18 like smart countries do. Jeez.

[Sparko]

Irrelevant to this case, where you are dead, and your heirs not inheriting your organs as property.



No. Your body is not your property to dispose of as you wish, whether you are alive or dead. This is why you cannot go and sell your own organs while alive. To assert otherwise is wishful thinking on your part.

Actually the reason you can't sell your organs is because selling organs from live or dead people is illegal. But you can indeed donate organs while you are still alive out of your own choosing. Kidneys and partial liver transplants are often done in such a manner, as well as bone marrow.

Your body is pretty much the ONLY property you truly own, since it is YOU.