Organs to be taken without consent

[billvon 3,009]

> Driving License is not such a good idea here in the U.K. You do not have to carry it.

Not too much of an issue; most mortally injured people are easily ID'ed at hospitals. A bigger issue would be that driver's licenses are not mandatory, although if they are common it's not as big a deal.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Why is the right to remain whole more important than the right to be used to help others live?

WTF? What "right" to be used? How is it someones right to help themselves to other peoples stuff? You have the right to offer, they do not have the right to take.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

WTF? What "right" to be used? How is it someones right to help themselves to other peoples stuff?

It is my right to be used as an organ donor, just as it is someone else's right to not be used as an organ donor. People are arguing that the proposed change will over-ride some people's rights to not be used. Under the status quo people like me are in danger of having our rights overridden.

Why is it more important that their rights be protected than my rights be protected?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[shropshire 0]

100% agree.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[labrys 0]

Quote

Why is the right to remain whole more important than the right to be used to help others live?

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 #?

[billvon 3,009]

>Why is it more important that their rights be protected than my rights be protected?

In a vacuum, both sets of rights are equally important.

If there is a clear societal advantage to favoring one set over the other, then that may be a consideration (provided both sets of rights are still respected.)

[JackC 0]

Quote

It is my right to be used as an organ donor, just as it is someone else's right to not be used as an organ donor. People are arguing that the proposed change will over-ride some people's rights to not be used. Under the status quo people like me are in danger of having our rights overridden.

You are already quite within your rights to offer your organs for transplant after you die. It should not be assumed that you have made that offer unless you actually do make it. Just like it should not be assumed that you wish to donate all your worldly goods to the inland revenue. The default position should be to not take unless you are invited.

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

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?

We're arguing at cross-purposes here.

Your example was with a person who had no ID at all, and couldn't be identified in any other manner. In that case it seems like a loophole to say that their consent is not assumed would be a fair idea.

Otherwise, you're working off the assumption that a special card recording non-consent would need to be carried. It wouldn't, your non-consent would be recorded on the national donor register.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

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.

Now who's twisting words?

My right to be used is under quite real danger of being over-ridden under the current system. Your argument against assumed consent is that some people's rights to not be used might be over-ridden. I'm asking why their rights are more important than mine.

You also haven't yet given me any reason why anyone would be unable to register non-consent.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

As was stated up-thread - the idea has already been broached to let criminals "buy off" their time by donation.

Given that, and the Chinese example of forced donation, I cannot support an 'opt-out' scenario...there's *always* "mission creep".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

My right to be used is under quite real danger of being over-ridden under the current system

Jakee, you do not have a "right" to be used. You have the right to offer, but no one is under any obligation to accept.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Otherwise, you're working off the assumption that a special card recording non-consent would need to be carried. It wouldn't, your non-consent would be recorded on the national donor register.

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 #?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

As was stated up-thread - the idea has already been broached to let criminals "buy off" their time by donation.

Given that, and the Chinese example of forced donation, I cannot support an 'opt-out' scenario...there's *always* "mission creep".

Assuming the consent of someone who is dead is far, far removed harvesting organs from living criminals. I can't see how the moral scenarios even slightly overlap.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

Quote

My right to be used is under quite real danger of being over-ridden under the current system

Jakee, you do not have a "right" to be used. You have the right to offer, but no one is under any obligation to accept.

OK. Makes no difference to the fact that under the status quo my right to offer myself as an organ donor is in real danger of being over-ridden, despite the existence of people literally dying to accept. Why is my right to offer less important than other's right to refuse?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[labrys 0]

I'm not twisting words. You said:

Quote

Why is the right to remain whole more important than the right to be used to help others live?

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 #?

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

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.

No more so than the status quo. A choice is being assumed at present, just as a choice will be assumed under the proposed system. All that has changed is the choice that is assumed - not whether or not one is assumed at all.

Quote

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.

Why? Surveys indicate that the great majority of the population, and even the great majority of the non-registered donor population are in favour of having their organs used.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

OK. Makes no difference to the fact that under the status quo my right to offer myself as an organ donor is in real danger of being over-ridden

How so? If you want to be used as a donor, just carry a donor card.

[labrys 0]

Quote

under the status quo my right to offer myself as an organ donor is in real danger of being over-ridden

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 #?

[labrys 0]

Quote

Why? Surveys indicate that the great majority of the population, and even the great majority of the non-registered donor population are in favour of having their organs used.

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 #?

[nerdgirl 0]

Or wait a few years until organ printing, aka bio-printing, is reality.

New Scientist & ABC News write-ups of work at University of Southern Carolina.

“What if the tens of thousands of people waiting for organ transplants in the United States didn't have to wait? What if burn victims could replace their scars with skin that was indistinguishable from their own? What if an amputee could replace an entire limb with one that felt, looked and behaved exactly as the original?”

Ink-jetted bone and muscle is already being done at Carnegie Mellon (MIT Tech Review write-up).

“Organ 'Printing' Creates Beating Heart Cells” based on work by folks at Clemson.

Then -- to intersect w/Keith’s [BIGUN] post on human prosthetics & augmentation -- the question becomes do you order a better, newer, younger organ (if you can pay for it or have access) or do you go old-school with someone else’s recycled organ (& all of the commensurate immunological problems).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Channman 2]

Just a Question: Does China allow Prisoners to Op out prior to getting a bullet in the back of the head. I seem to remember reading somewhere that China makes the Big Bucks in the Body Parts business.

[DJL 235]

Wow that Death Tax really costs an arm and a leg these days.


....Thanks, I'll be here all week. Try the veal.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[jakee 1,500]

Quote

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.

Opting in is that simple, I haven't denied it (and you still haven't explain why opting out would be difficult). As I have said several times, I think that most people simply don't have a strong enough opinion either way to make even a token effort to make their feelings known.

Quote

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.

Then I obviously have a more faith in basic human laziness than you do.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JackC 0]

Quote

As I have said several times, I think that most people simply don't have a strong enough opinion either way to make even a token effort to make their feelings known.

That's probably true. Still, laziness is no excuse for someone helping themselves without expressed permission. Apathy is a right, you can't legislate it away.

[labrys 0]

Quote

Then I obviously have a more faith in basic human laziness than you do.

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 #?