Organ Donation Opt-Out Proposal defeated.

[Zaia]

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

Ah, turns out I scanned over that post of his because I thought it was all his sig. My bad.

[Darth Raptor]

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

For the last fucking time: NO!

Replacement organs are needed. As of now there is only one source for those organs. The needs of the LIVING outweigh the needs of the DEAD. This is not to say that all posessions of a deceased party are to be liquidated. Because the need is nowhere near as urgent and there are alternative, less intrusive sources for anything else you can get from a dead person. Christ!

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

So my system is bad because it could potentially be abused? There's a name for this fallacy, isn't there?

[fgalkin]

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

For the last fucking time: NO!

Replacement organs are needed. As of now there is only one source for those organs. The needs of the LIVING outweigh the needs of the DEAD. This is not to say that all posessions of a deceased party are to be liquidated. Because the need is nowhere near as urgent and there are alternative, less intrusive sources for anything else you can get from a dead person. Christ!

What if there are no less intrusive sources. What if the government is broke , social welfare is nonexistent, and people are starving on the street. Is it justifiable to liquidate the dead man's posessions and use the money to feed the starving?

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

So my system is bad because it could potentially be abused? There's a name for this fallacy, isn't there?

That wasn't really an argument, merely a statement of my personal opinion.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Darth Raptor]

What if there are no less intrusive sources. What if the government is broke , social welfare is nonexistent, and people are starving on the street. Is it justifiable to liquidate the dead man's posessions and use the money to feed the starving?

Assuming his assets were willed to no heir, absolutely. Although the dead aren't likely to be a source of revenue in your post-apocalyptic world anyway.

[Faqa]

In favor of opt-out. If it's THAT important to you, take the opt-out option. Staying in is considered express permission to harvest.

The only thing that troubles me is medical ethics - will a doctor try as hard to save an organ donor in a critical situation? What if he has a loved one on the list? What if he's got sympathy for a group of people on the list?

I might not feel completely secure on an operating table as an organ donor. But I'll pay that price.

How 'bout this - the donor list is SEALED TIGHT except for when you need to run a cadaver's name. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SEARCH FOR LIVING PEOPLE ON THE LIST!!

With that, I'll choose opt-out. Better that people should use my organs than that worms should eat them. Make people work for being selfish instead of work for being generous.

[Howedar]

And that's fine for you. You could just as easily be a donor in an opt-in system. I fail to see why your desire to donate means you necessarily support an opt-out system.

[Faqa]

Read the last part, if you're referring to my posts. I want people to work for being selfish(letting their organs rot), not for being generous(saving lives with their organs).
Opt-in will inherently keep out those who don't care one way or the other and lower numbers. Opt-out will keep out those who actually care for some reason, and leave most in. That's the difference.

[Edi]

What if there are no less intrusive sources. What if the government is broke , social welfare is nonexistent, and people are starving on the street. Is it justifiable to liquidate the dead man's posessions and use the money to feed the starving?

Assuming his assets were willed to no heir, absolutely. Although the dead aren't likely to be a source of revenue in your post-apocalyptic world anyway.

The problem with your scenario is that even if there is no active will, all property of the deceased is willed to his heirs by default (after debtors have taken their cut). If there are no surviving heirs and no active will that assigns his property to someone who is outside the normal succession sequence, the property will default to the state. The succession sequence cuts off blood relatives beyond some point, so you need to be relatively close family (cousin bloodlines can inherit each other, but further removed are out, afaik, so e.g. my cousins and their children would inherit me if my branch of the family had all died out, but no my cousins who are once or more removed). Of course, that's how it works here, but I think the basics of inheritance law would be rather similar in the West so most of that should apply to he US also.

Edi