Organs to be taken without consent

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Quote

>I'm welcome to waltz into your ex-home and take your shit?

Well, just for you JP - if I do go in and you need something in my house to save a friend from imminent death, feel free.

Now I'm wondering what story JP will come up with to explain to Amy why he needs all of your bondage gear to save a friend from imminent death.

ShhhhhhH! I've got my reasons!

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

[JackC 0]

Quote

There are not enough registered organ donors. There is a great discrepancy between the number of people polls show are in favour of having there organs donated and the number of people who are actually registered organ donors.

This is not sufficient reason to conscript people into becoming donors. The US has nearly double the number of registered donors (25 donors per million population) that the UK has (13 per million) despite having an opt-in policy the same as the current UK system. The US is even better than France (22 per million) despite them having an opt-out policy. These numbers alone prove that it is not necessary to shift the responsibility from "give" to "take" in order to increase the number of donors.

Source for donor per million population numbers

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Exactly. No assumptions made either way and it is clear to all

The topic of discussion is about what should be done in the absence of documentation. There's a yes box and a no box. What should be done if neither is checked?

I believe that nothing should be given to any state without explicit permission. No check would then be considered an opt out.

"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 1,594]

Quote

Irrelevant.

You don't expect me to read the whole God damned thread do ya???? I walked up when I did....thought my thoughts were relevant at that particular place in time...lol

Cope.

No, it was irrelevant to the particular digression we were discussing at the time.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

As stated above, giving implied consent to the government is like the guy at the frat party saying "Well, she *said* she wanted to"...

What? That doesn't make any sense. If she said yes then that is explicit consent. Nothing whatsoever to do with implied consent.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

But, implying that the government somehow "owns me" after I die simply because I didn't sign (or didn't know I had to sign) some piece of paper?

Not all of you, part of you. The useful parts. JackC mentioned inheritance tax and used the example of "should the Gov't be able to levy 100% inheritance tax if you don't opt out". That example is faulty, since the Gov't wouldn't be taking 100% of your body, just parts of it. Just as they currently take part of your estate when you die. The two would be completely in line.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

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.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

I was thinking of legal rights, actually. Do the dead have ANY rights, and if so, what are they?

Is the body of a person who believes in the afterlife owned by the state when they meet the state's definition of death?

In very, very nearly every single currently practiced religion the afterlife is a purely spiritual, non-corporeal affair. Not many people are interested in being buried with a full retinue of weapons, wealth and slaves any more.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

Not all of you, part of you. The useful parts. JackC mentioned inheritance tax and used the example of "should the Gov't be able to levy 100% inheritance tax if you don't opt out". That example is faulty, since the Gov't wouldn't be taking 100% of your body, just parts of it. Just as they currently take part of your estate when you die. The two would be completely in line.

So you are in favour of a body tax where the government automatically gets to distribute whatever bits it wants from your corpse? Inheritance tax currently runs at 40% for estates over £263000. Does that mean the government can have up to 40% of your body provided you weigh over 263 lbs?

The issue is one of taking without asking. You do not take unless invited to do so. It works for chocolate, sex, mp3s, charity and it should work for body parts too (and inheritance tax). Why do you think organs should be any different?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

So you are in favour of a body tax where the government automatically gets to distribute whatever bits it wants from your corpse? Inheritance tax currently runs at 40% for estates over £263000. Does that mean the government can have up to 40% of your body provided you weigh over 263 lbs?

That's just dumb. The issue is vital organs. There's a pretty set limit of how much can be taken.

Quote

Why do you think organs should be any different?

I don't, you do. I think organs should be treated along the same lines as the rest of your estate when you die. Why do you think they shouldn't?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

I think organs should be treated along the same lines as the rest of your estate when you die. Why do you think they shouldn't?

The rest of your estate is passed to you next of kin unless it falls over the tax threshold in which case it's taxed at 40%. You don't have to opt out, you don't have to do anything. If you want to leave your stuff to Battersea Dogs Home you write a will, in a similar way to carrying a donor card which registers your wishes in the current donor system.

I'll go along with passing my remains to my next of kin (who can act acording to my wishes or not) but my next of kin definately isn't HM government.

The proposed change would be like the government getting your estate and taking whatever parts of it they want before giving whatever's left back to your next of kin; unless you opt out. It isn't acceptable for your estate, why should it be acceptable for your body?

[Royd 0]

How long after this becomes common practice, does it become acceptable to harvest organs from convicted criminals on death row? Then how long till the crimes that warrent such a penalty become more and more benign?

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

Quote

That's retarded. What the hell does death row have to do with dead people in a hospital?

Do you have any direct objection to the issue of implied consent?

It's something commonly known as the slippery slope, and yes, it's real.

Just look at the direction abortion has taken.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

You just said an organ tax was a dumb idea, "That's just dumb" you said.

Three things are dumb. Number one: Suggesting that the fatter you are the more the organ service will be allowed to take from your corpse. Ridiculous argument. Number two: Thinking that the government isn't in the business of taking things from you without asking. It's basically what they're for. Number three: Trying to make out that the proposed system will make it compulsory to donate organs a la inheritance tax. (I'll throw in a fourth as a freebee: Taking 'Along the same lines' to mean 'exactly the same to the letter')

Hell, that's all just a sidebar anyway: under the proposed system the government is still actually asking you for your permission! You don't get to opt out of inheritance tax, you do get to opt out of this. Fucking bonus!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

It's something commonly known as the slippery slope, and yes, it's real.

It's not an example of the slippery slope, it's two completely different slopes.

You're aware that the UK doesn't even have a death row, yeah? It's going to be mighty difficult for us to start harvesting organs from non-existant condemned convicts.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[wmw999 2,587]

Quote

Just look at the direction abortion has taken.

If you're talking about the path that abortion opponents are trying to take in eroding the right to choose, yes, they're working pretty hard at the slippery slope.

And yes, what I think is right is, in fact, reflected in my choice of words

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Royd 0]

Quote

Only difference is, under the current system peoples wishes get violated and other people die as a result.

Wrong. They die because their ticket has been punched.

The grim reaper, the Death Angel or whatever you want to call him is standing at the door.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Wrong. They die because their ticket has been punched.

The grim reaper, the Death Angel or whatever you want to call him is standing at the door.

Right. So if I shoot you in the face it's not my fault if you die, it was just destiny coming knocking? Give me a fucking break

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Hey, you said you wanted organs to be treated the same as the rest of your estate. The rest of your estate is taxed if it's value exceeds the threshold. What threshold would you put on organ harvesting?

Under the current system you donate your organs in the same way that you may donate your estate to a charity. You do this by carrying a donor card. This is in line with what you claim you want, ie "organs should be treated along the same lines as the rest of your estate when you die". Except, this isn't actually what you want. You want your stuff to go to charity by default unless you opt out.

The current system is not broken, it may not be adequately implemented but it is not broken. Before taking anything, you should obtain permission. You cannot just assume that permission is given because you didn't explicitly hear the word no.

[Royd 0]

Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Forced? What total bullshit. They never bothered to go sign the fucking paperwork. No one forced them not to go do it. If people die for lack of donors it's their lazy asses that deserve the blame.

In reality, how many organs are actually going to useful, unless the person dies in a hospital, or is picked up by the meat wagon immediately after an accident, except for research purposes. There are plenty of homeless people for that.

Who the hell wants a liver from a 70yr. old alcoholic, or a set of lungs from some wheezing enphezimiac.

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?

[Royd 0]

Quote

Listen... don't twist my words. The vast majority of people who don't get around to signing organ donar cards just flat don't get around to it. There are probably a small few who simply can't go sign the paperwork. I feel bad for the ones who want to and can't.

I think that a lot of people might think it's a good idea, like so many ideas someone else comes up with, but the thought of someone ripping their heart out of the their chest ten seconds after it misses a beat, creeps them out.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Hey, you said you wanted organs to be treated the same as the rest of your estate. The rest of your estate is taxed if it's value exceeds the threshold. What threshold would you put on organ harvesting?

No I didn't. I said 'along the same lines'. Meaning simply that the gov't gets to take part of your estate so why shouldn't they get to take part of your body?

You're the one who brought up inheritance tax in the first place mate, and if your going to take issue with my analogy then you'll have to admit that yours was even more useless. Do you want me to dig up your post about 100% opt out inheritance tax? What was that about? Who's talking about taking 100% of your body?

Quote

Under the current system you donate your organs in the same way that you may donate your estate to a charity. You do this by carrying a donor card. This is in line with what you claim you want, ie "organs should be treated along the same lines as the rest of your estate when you die". Except, this isn't actually what you want. You want your stuff to go to charity by default unless you opt out.

Hang on a minute: so are you talking about charities getting organs or the government taking organs? For the whole thread you've been talking about not wanting the gov't to take them, now you're talking about charities getting them? Make up your mind here - gov't or charity?

Again (to use another of your analogies so don't blame me if it's broken) the gov't takes your stuff. All the time. It takes part of your chocolate. It takes part of your MP3 player. It takes a shitload of your petrol, alcohol, earnings and estate (given x value of estate). Why would it be so out of whack with what we accept that the gov't has a right to take from us that we should have an opt out instead of an opt in organ donation service? It's positively tame compared to how the gov't treats the rest of your possessions.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

Quote

I think that a lot of people might think it's a good idea, like so many ideas someone else comes up with, but the thought of someone ripping their heart out of the their chest ten seconds after it misses a beat, creeps them out.

I agree. I think that if jakee gets his wish he's going to be really, really surprised at how many people who claim to support donation but haven't gotten around to signing up suddenly get motivated to "opt out" when the rubber meets the road.

Owned by Remi #?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

In reality, how many organs are actually going to useful, unless the person dies in a hospital, or is picked up by the meat wagon immediately after an accident, except for research purposes.

Not very many at all. Which is why we need as many potential donors as we can get.

Quote

Who the hell wants a liver from a 70yr. old alcoholic, or a set of lungs from some wheezing enphezimiac.

No-one, and no-one is going to get them. Seriously dude, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you under the immensely misguided opinion that an opt out donation service would mean using everyones organs for transplants regardless of how unsuitable they are?

Quote

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?

No. And whuh?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

No I didn't. I said 'along the same lines'. Meaning simply that the gov't gets to take part of your estate so why shouldn't they get to take part of your body?

Are you suggesting that enrolment on the organ donors list should be enforced like taxation is enforced?

If the government isn't going to force you into being a donor, then it is still a gift and the next nearest thing I can think of to that is a charity. You can leave your estate to charity and you can leave your organs to a charity too (insomuch as the reciever of your organs may be likened to a charity). What's wrong with that? You don't have to opt out of leaving your estate to charity, it automatically goes to the next of kin unless you specify otherwise. This is the same as organ donation, under the current system.

A better analogy is perhaps a government mandate that says you will leave your estate to charity, to be used in part or in whole as they see fit and the remainder returned to the next of kin, unless you specifically opt out. It moves the emphasis from "give" to "take" and that is unacceptable.

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Are you suggesting that enrolment on the organ donors list should be enforced like taxation is enforced?

Quote

Again (to use another of your analogies so don't blame me if it's broken) the gov't takes your stuff. All the time. It takes part of your chocolate. It takes part of your MP3 player. It takes a shitload of your petrol, alcohol, earnings and estate (given x value of estate). Why would it be so out of whack with what we accept that the gov't has a right to take from us that we should have an opt out instead of an opt in organ donation service? It's positively tame compared to how the gov't treats the rest of your possessions.

Quote

If the government isn't going to force you into being a donor, then it is still a gift and the next nearest thing I can think of to that is a charity.

So what? That's just a semantic game and I fail to see what impact it has on whether or not the proposal is acceptable. Your sentance implies that it would be ok if the government did force you to do it. If the government did force you to do it then charity would be out of the equation and it would just be business as usual.

Quote

A better analogy is perhaps a government mandate that says you will leave your estate to charity, to be used in part or in whole as they see fit and the remainder returned to the next of kin, unless you specifically opt out.

No, that's still rubbish unless you can show how decaying organs have the same actual value to next of kin that money and property has.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?