labrys

That's a theological argument, isn't it? I'm an atheist, kallend. I don't really give a rat's ass what happens to my body after I die. I don't think that that opinion gives me the right to disrespect someone who believes otherwise. Owned by Remi #?

It's not too far away from the OP since the OP says that the state will not be allowed to over-ride family. Or are you asking if the original idea should be changed to allow the state to over-ride? Owned by Remi #?

That was meant to be rhetorical. Owned by Remi #?

And it isn't always easy and it isn't always free. I'm just trying to boil it down the the rock bottom. Costing anyone any effort or cost at all to retain the right to their own organs is wrong, IMO. Owned by Remi #?

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? Owned by Remi #?

While I agree with what you're saying 100%, I'm willing to concede that there are people out there who do believe they are harmed when their organs are removed and I believe that they have the right to keep them unless they give explicit permission. Hell, some people save amputated limbs in freezers until they die so that they can be buried intact. Owned by Remi #?

I'm gonna guess that since you live in the UK you haven't seen some of the poorest areas of the US. Maybe implied consent would work over there. Owned by Remi #?

That doesn't have anything to do with allowing the state to make the decision. The OP suggests that family could over-ride the state as well. The arguement isn't about whether or not family has a say in the matter, it's about whether the government does. Owned by Remi #?

You must have missed my post. Ever given a guy on a street corner who was clearly down on his luck a few bucks? How easy do you think it is for that guy to opt out? How easy would it be for the average nursing home resident? How easy for the homebound? How easy for someone with an illness that doesn't affect all their organs? Owned by Remi #?

It must be harder to sign up where you live. In Ohio, all you have to do is check a box on your drivers license or state ID application. How lazy do you have to be to fail to check a box? A huge percentage of people carry a driver's license or state ID. That makes it easy for them. It's harder for those who don't carry those types of ID. If any of them are not able to obtain ID, we assume that they retain the rights to their organs and do not take them without consent. I don't agree with coupling organ donation to such IDs, but that's how it works where I live right now. If you flip it around per your proposal, a huge number of people will be able to opt out easily. Some still won't. The state shouldn't have the right to take their organs because they fall outside the norm. Owned by Remi #?

In the first case the decision is being made under more of a time constraint than the second. I think that influences the gut reaction to pull the switch. Morally, I think both cases are equal. And the uncontrolled vs controlled environments make it feel different. Owned by Remi #?

Then what's stopping them from signing up? It's easy, right? So easy that 100% of the population could do it without much effort if they wanted to. If you want to claim that opting out would be that simple, then you have to admit that opting in is that simple too. So what's stopping them? My guess is that most of the people who claim that they think donating is a good idea but haven't signed up really at the heart of it don't want to do it. Owned by Remi #?

How is your right endangered? Give one tiny example of how your right to chose to donate is in even the slightest danger. All you have to do is go sign up, man. As you asked me earlier: Please explain. Owned by Remi #?

I'm not twisting words. You said: If you meant the state's right to use one person to help others then I still assert that the state has no right to use my body without my explicit consent. If you meant your right to donate, it is not your right to be used, it is your decision. You have the right to make that choice, but you do not have the inherent right to be used. Owned by Remi #?

And how are they going to identify me? By the ID I am carrying, right? Which means that if I chose to carry any sort of ID, I'm being forced to chose whether or not I want to be an organ donor. The state has no right to assume they can have my body without my explicit consent, and they have no right to force me to record my consent or lack of it before I am given unrelated identification. National organ donor registry... that's great. I'm all for that. I'll go put myself on the list if I want to. If I'm not on the list, assume I don't want to donate. And FWIW, I am an organ donor. Owned by Remi #?

I'll second that WTF? Someone who is sick does NOT have the right to another's body just because they are sick. Being sick doesn't give anyone rights they don't have when they're healthy. Owned by Remi #?

Okay, I did mis-speak. What I was trying to say is this: If you agree that if someone doesn't have an organ donor card then it should be assumed that they do not wish to donate, how does that differ from the current system? If you're going to tack the "opt out" option to another form of identification then you're forcing people to make a choice about whether or not they want to donate when they decide whether or not they need or want to carry that ID. If you tacked that "opt out" option to a driver's license, for example, then you're forcing someone to decide whether or not they want to be an organ donor before you allow them to drive. Why should I have to decide if I want to donate before I'm allowed to drive? The choice needs to be independent of other privledges, which means it needs to be apart from all other forms of identification, which means it needs to be a unique card. Which means if I don't want to donate I just won't go get a card (just like now) Otherwise, you would be forcing someone to carry paperwork. Owned by Remi #?

No, I didn't. Perhaps you just didn't understand my point. Owned by Remi #?

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. If you turn it around then there will be a percentage of people who are simply unable to go sign the forms. What you are proposing forces them to give up basic rights without consent. If you can explain better than "mass media" how you are going to guarantee that 100% of a society will be able to sign these forms and how you're going to enable people to retain basic rights without carrying a card around I'll get on board. Owned by Remi #?

That means that in order to retain rights a person will be required to carry paperwork or other identification on their person. A great many people believe that inherent rights should not require paperwork. Privledges yes, rights no. Owned by Remi #?

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. If the governemt wants to get involved then they should campaign for people to go sign up. Edit to add: Tell me again how you're going to make sure that everyone has the opportunity to go opt out and how you're going to guarantee that that information is available when this person arrives at the hospital? Owned by Remi #?

Please explain to me why you think my response is emotion driven? You're making an assumption there that just because I disagree with you I haven't thought it through. Tell me how you're going to make sure everyone has the opportunity to explicitly retain rights? Are you going to go door to door with the paperwork or are you going to give everyone a ride to the office that handles the consent forms? Are you going to require everyone to carry a card around that lists their consent? Are you going to assume that someone who happens to end up dead in a hospital without their card should lose their rights? Here's one example. What about the person who's out for a walk one night and is unlucky enough to be robbed and murdered. No ID. Organs have to be harvested quickly. If we assume consent we may be taking organs from a person with very strong religious objections to donating organs. Is this person shit out of luck because they happened to die without having "I am not an organ donor" tattooed on their forhead? Our rights to our bodies should be ours unless explicitly released. And that means that some people who wanted to donate won't donate. That's the way it should be. It's sad that people die for lack of available organs, but that's the way it is. Everyone dies someday. Some earlier than others. Owned by Remi #?

I can't remember which US State it was, but no too long ago someplace was considering offering criminals reduced or commuted sentences if they donated organs. I think that idea was shot down pretty quickly. Owned by Remi #?

Not sure what you want more of an explanation of, but I'll elaborate. The state has no more right to someone's body after they die than they do before they die. Free citizens of a state should not be required to register if they don't want to release their organs to the state. The state should assume that someone retains their rights unless they explicity give them up. Owned by Remi #?

I think it's more of a huge step. Owned by Remi #?