Organ Donation Opt-Out Proposal defeated.

[Darth Raptor]

I thought un-willed items went to the family? I'm ok with them making a decision, but the state has no right to harvest my body without mine or my next of kin's consent.

Why?

If I'm dead and don't care, why not make grave-robbing legal? Why should I care about the guy who digs me up and steals the ring I was buried with?

This isn't about grave-robbing. People are dying and are in need of replacement organs. It should be a crime to waste those organs when they can be used.

But dead bodies are automatically willed to the family

Yeah, so? The family is the only one who would or should care about a body once all practical uses have been exhausted.

Really? So if you see a guy die on the street, you will take all of his posessions?

No, but if I'm in the desert, and I see a guy die in the desert, you can be damn sure I'm going to take his fucking cantine.

[Plekhanov]

I know what you're saying. I'm saying the idea that the dead have rights to anything when the needs of the living are of far greater concern is utter bullshit.

Just think a little about what you’re suggesting here, if your policy were to be adopted critically ill people would refuse to go to hospital for fear that their organs would be taken when they died, grieving relatives would have to be restrained whilst doctors took bodies the recently deceased to be cut up against their will. And just think what how certain religious communities would react to such a law, yes I know their reasons are bullshit but they have a right to live and die by their own bullshit.

You motives are the best but the effects of such a policy would be disastrous and would lead to many groups and individuals in society coming into serious and quite possibly violent conflict with the state.

[Darth Raptor]

Just think a little about what you’re suggesting here, if your policy were to be adopted critically ill people would refuse to go to hospital for fear that their organs would be taken when they died, grieving relatives would have to be restrained whilst doctors took bodies the recently deceased to be cut up against their will. And just think what how certain religious communities would react to such a law, yes I know their reasons are bullshit but they have a right to live and die by their own bullshit.

And die by their bullshit they shall, if your list of repercussions turn out to be true. They do not, however, have the right to cause other people to die by their bullshit.

[Gandalf]

I thought un-willed items went to the family? I'm ok with them making a decision, but the state has no right to harvest my body without mine or my next of kin's consent.

Why?

Because it's my body. It's an involuntary mutilation if they start taking parts with no regard for any of my wishes or my family's.

If I'm dead and don't care, why not make grave-robbing legal? Why should I care about the guy who digs me up and steals the ring I was buried with?

This isn't about grave-robbing. People are dying and are in need of replacement organs. It should be a crime to waste those organs when they can be used.

And the items I'm buried with can be taken and sold to raise revenue for social welfare. That ring I'm buried with could be resold and get a poor man some shoes for the winter. The amount spent on a coffin could feed a starving family in Ethiopia for weeks. The cost of a burial plot could keep them going for a year. Yet is that a crime? The line must be drawn somewhere.

[Darth Raptor]

Because it's my body. It's an involuntary mutilation if they start taking parts with no regard for any of my wishes or my family's.

It's my water. Now go die of thirst on someone else's doorstep.

And the items I'm buried with can be taken and sold to raise revenue for social welfare. That ring I'm buried with could be resold and get a poor man some shoes for the winter. The amount spent on a coffin could feed a starving family in Ethiopia for weeks. The cost of a burial plot could keep them going for a year. Yet is that a crime? The line must be drawn somewhere.

Yes, it should. But you're the one who brought up grave-robbing, remember? I'm talking about organ donation.

[Gandalf]

Because it's my body. It's an involuntary mutilation if they start taking parts with no regard for any of my wishes or my family's.

It's my water. Now go die of thirst on someone else's doorstep.

Eh?

And the items I'm buried with can be taken and sold to raise revenue for social welfare. That ring I'm buried with could be resold and get a poor man some shoes for the winter. The amount spent on a coffin could feed a starving family in Ethiopia for weeks. The cost of a burial plot could keep them going for a year. Yet is that a crime? The line must be drawn somewhere.

Yes, it should. But you're the one who brought up grave-robbing, remember? I'm talking about organ donation.

And my point there is that organ theft is grave robbing. So while we're pinching organs, why not the valuables?

[Plekhanov]

And die by their bullshit they shall, if your list of repercussions turn out to be true. They do not, however, have the right to cause other people to die by their bullshit.

There is a significant practical and moral difference between actively harming people and failing to help them through omission. The state generally has a duty to act in the former but we have to be much more careful in the latter circumstance when we are actually calling on the state to compel people to help others.

[Darth Raptor]

Eh?

My unique physiology makes it so that I do not have to consume any to live. And I have plenty. But you can't have any, because it's mine.

And my point there is that organ theft is grave robbing. So while we're pinching organs, why not the valuables?

Because no one needs a diamond ring transplant. No one has cancer of the tuxedo. The valuables that are used to decorate the grave belong to the family, and are part of the grave. Internal organs have not been since ancient Egyptian times.

There is a significant practical and moral difference between actively harming people and failing to help them through omission. The state generally has a duty to act in the former but we have to be much more careful in the latter circumstance when we are actually calling on the state to compel people to help others.

No one's compeling anyone to do anything. They're dead.

[Gandalf]

Eh?

My unique physiology makes it so that I do not have to consume any to live. And I have plenty. But you can't have any, because it's mine.

What a bizarre analogy. But that's right, it's your water.

And my point there is that organ theft is grave robbing. So while we're pinching organs, why not the valuables?

Because no one needs a diamond ring transplant. No one has cancer of the tuxedo. The valuables that are used to decorate the grave belong to the family, and are part of the grave. Internal organs have not been since ancient Egyptian times.[/quote]

But my body belongs to my family too, why should they have no say in that?

How many people need the money generated by selling my burial nik-naks? Quite a few I could imagine.

Also, I believe the Egyptians consented to their organs being taken and placed in jars.

[Darth Raptor]

What a bizarre analogy. But that's right, it's your water.

Thanks for understanding, now die.

But my body belongs to my family too, why should they have no say in that?

Because it's a gross misallocation of resources. Because it's wasting resources that could be used to save lives. This consideration trumps all. The will of the family is insignificant in comparison.

How many people need the money generated by selling my burial nik-naks? Quite a few I could imagine.

Oh yes, probably. But that's a seperate issue, so you can get off of it. There are alternatvie sources for burial nick-nacks. This is not the case with replacement organs.

Also, I believe the Egyptians consented to their organs being taken and placed in jars.

I used that as an example of when organs were considered important for the dead. With such modern ammenities like science, that's no longer the case.

[Plekhanov]

There is a significant practical and moral difference between actively harming people and failing to help them through omission. The state generally has a duty to act in the former but we have to be much more careful in the latter circumstance when we are actually calling on the state to compel people to help others.

No one's compeling anyone to do anything. They're dead.

You are compelling them you are compelling them to live in a country where their body isn’t their own. You are also compelling the grieving loved ones of the deceased to either sit idly by and whilst their loved one is carved up against his/her and quite likely their wishes or alternatively you are compelling the fatally ill and injured to try and conceal their plight from the state for fear that their bodies will be cut up when they die. Now I’d agree with you that such a fear is irrational and wrong but I’m afraid we have to deal with all manner of irrational and wrong things in this life is a realistic manner, your proposal doesn’t do that it is idealistic and foolhardy.

You seem to be taking a very collectivist view here so let me apply the principles of your proposal to an alternative scenario. I expect you are relatively well off, you have far more material wealth than you need (and I mean Need to survive) whereas there a millions of people in this world and quite a few in your own country in dire need of your excess wealth. How would you react if the state summarily seized all that you don’t need to survive to help those who will die without your unnecessary wealth? After all we are talking about your unnecessary wealth and saving lives here.

[Plekhanov]

Btw. Raptor sorry for forgetting to include your position on the poll.

[Tsyroc]

Incidentally I’ve heard that one reason for the shortage of organs is that improvements in car safety have reduced the number of healthy types dieing in car accidents and consequently reduced the supply of useable organs.

Arizona still allows adults to ride motorcycles without helmets so we've got some donors coming in that way.

[Gandalf]

What a bizarre analogy. But that's right, it's your water.

Thanks for understanding, now die.

But my body belongs to my family too, why should they have no say in that?

Because it's a gross misallocation of resources. Because it's wasting resources that could be used to save lives. This consideration trumps all. The will of the family is insignificant in comparison.

Conceivably, couldn't you kill me for my resources? What's my one life weighed up against the dozen or so who might be saved by my death? It's not like I'm accomplishing much anyway.

How many people need the money generated by selling my burial nik-naks? Quite a few I could imagine.

Oh yes, probably. But that's a seperate issue, so you can get off of it. There are alternatvie sources for burial nick-nacks. This is not the case with replacement organs.

Yes there is, voluntary donors.

[Darth Raptor]

You are compelling them you are compelling them to live in a country where their body isn’t their own. You are also compelling the grieving loved ones of the deceased to either sit idly by and whilst their loved one is carved up against his/her and quite likely their wishes or alternatively you are compelling the fatally ill and injured to try and conceal their plight from the state for fear that their bodies will be cut up when they die. Now I’d agree with you that such a fear is irrational and wrong but I’m afraid we have to deal with all manner of irrational and wrong things in this life is a realistic manner, your proposal doesn’t do that it is idealistic and foolhardy.

The irrational and wrong fears of the parties above makes them solely responsible for whatever they forfeit as a result.

You seem to be taking a very collectivist view here so let me apply the principles of your proposal to an alternative scenario. I expect you are relatively well off, you have far more material wealth than you need (and I mean Need to survive) whereas there a millions of people in this world and quite a few in your own country in dire need of your excess wealth. How would you react if the state summarily seized all that you don’t need to survive to help those who will die without your unnecessary wealth? After all we are talking about your unnecessary wealth and saving lives here.

No, I'm not an all-round collectivist by any stretch of the imagination. It's just this one issue. And your alternative scenario doesn't work. Why? Because I'm still alive. I have the right to deny someone one of my kidneys, aven if I can survive with only one. Why? Because I'm still alive. I'm saying the dead don't have rights to anything when the living are in need. You can't swap the dead for another group of living and make that statement work.

Btw. Raptor sorry for forgetting to include your position on the poll.

I voted opt-out anyway.

Conceivably, couldn't you kill me for my resources? What's my one life weighed up against the dozen or so who might be saved by my death? It's not like I'm accomplishing much anyway.

Don't be absurd. You're still alive.

Yes there is, voluntary donors.

Do you know what an insufficient ammount is? It's a really simple concept, actually.

[Gandalf]

Yes there is, voluntary donors.

Do you know what an insufficient ammount is? It's a really simple concept, actually.

There are insufficient amounts of money in the community. Should the state sell my posessions to feed the poor and unfortunate? People die from starvation and the lack of proper care they cannot afford. They might be able to if the government took my things. After all, I'm not using them because I'm dead.

If the government's going to rape my body they may as well take my stuff as well.

[Darth Raptor]

There are insufficient amounts of money in the community. Should the state sell my posessions to feed the poor and unfortunate? People die from starvation and the lack of proper care they cannot afford. They might be able to if the government took my things. After all, I'm not using them because I'm dead.

There are alternative sources of funds. I say again, until our cloning technology improves, the only place you can get replacement organs is from.... *drumroll* ...dead bodies! Now, with only the voluntary donors, that isn't enough. Like you said, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and there are much more feasable alternatives for liquidating cemetary decorations. This is not the case with replacement organs, you may now get off of it.

If the government's going to rape my body they may as well take my stuff as well.

That's admirable, but it's not what I was suggesting.

[Plekhanov]

The irrational and wrong fears of the parties above makes them solely responsible for whatever they forfeit as a result.

Their opinions may well be “irrational and wrong” but we still have to find some way of accommodating them and the “irrational and wrong” ways they might react to the state requisitioning their organs. Simply telling people they are wrong just doesn’t cut it you have to consider what the effects that such a law would have on society and the relationship between the state and recalcitrant citizens.

You seem to be taking a very collectivist view here so let me apply the principles of your proposal to an alternative scenario. I expect you are relatively well off, you have far more material wealth than you need (and I mean Need to survive) whereas there a millions of people in this world and quite a few in your own country in dire need of your excess wealth. How would you react if the state summarily seized all that you don’t need to survive to help those who will die without your unnecessary wealth? After all we are talking about your unnecessary wealth and saving lives here.

No, I'm not an all-round collectivist by any stretch of the imagination. It's just this one issue. And your alternative scenario doesn't work. Why? Because I'm still alive. I have the right to deny someone one of my kidneys, aven if I can survive with only one. Why? Because I'm still alive. I'm saying the dead don't have rights to anything when the living are in need. You can't swap the dead for another group of living and make that statement work.

I didn’t mean your spare organs I meant your material wealth (as in goods and possessions) not strictly necessary for your survival which I suspect is most of your stuff including the computer you are reading this on. If your computer was seized and sold many starving people who would otherwise die could be fed with the proceeds. So does the state have the right to take all your unnecessary stuff?

[Zaia]

Because it's my body. It's an involuntary mutilation if they start taking parts with no regard for any of my wishes or my family's.

But in the OP it says you can refuse if you don't want to be a donor, so there's plenty of regard for your wishes. If it means that much to you, get off your bum and put yourself on the 'leave the fuck alone' list.

[Darth Raptor]

Their opinions may well be “irrational and wrong” but we still have to find some way of accommodating them and the “irrational and wrong” ways they might react to the state requisitioning their organs. Simply telling people they are wrong just doesn’t cut it you have to consider what the effects that such a law would have on society and the relationship between the state and recalcitrant citizens.

Whatever they bring upon themselves as a result of those fears is their fault and theirs alone. The state cannot and should not bear any responsibility for that. Policy that could save lives on such a vast scale should not need to be altered to accomidate the the omniphobic mob.

I didn’t mean your spare organs I meant your material wealth (as in goods and possessions) not strictly necessary for your survival which I suspect is most of your stuff including the computer you are reading this on. If your computer was seized and sold many starving people who would otherwise die could be fed with the proceeds. So does the state have the right to take all your unnecessary stuff?

I already answered that. The answer is no. I'm not debating economics. I'm not talking about the distribution of resources between different groups of the living. I'm specifically talking about the distribution of resources between the living and the dead. I said I'm not a collectivist. There's a lot of gray area in these living/living scenarios. This is a living/dead scenario, and is a different animal entirely.

[Joe]

I intend to donate my organs and give my body to science when I die, but I don't think organ donation should be compulsory, for reasons listed above by others and more.

I do, however, think that people should be allowed to sell their organs.

[Howedar]

It should absolutely be opt-in. It's a basic tenent of the government of the United States (and damned near every other country represented on this board, I'm not trying to be a shortsighted egotistical American) that as much freedom should be granted the citizens as possible.

Taking organs without express permission doesn't really register with me as enhancing personal freedom.






Note that I am most certainly a registered organ donor and I give blood regularly.

[The Yosemite Bear]

I"m an organ doner

[fgalkin]

Because it's my body. It's an involuntary mutilation if they start taking parts with no regard for any of my wishes or my family's.

But in the OP it says you can refuse if you don't want to be a donor, so there's plenty of regard for your wishes. If it means that much to you, get off your bum and put yourself on the 'leave the fuck alone' list.

He's responding to Lazy Raptor's brilliant idea that everyone should be carved up for spare parts after they die. Read the thread before you post, mmkay?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[fgalkin]

So, Raptor, I assume you support abolishing any inertiance whatsoever. I mean, the dead surely don't need it anyway, right.

Also, I sure as hell wouldn't want some doctor decide I cannot be saved just because someone needs my organs.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin