NationStates Jolt Archive

I am somewhat amused that people call this a "human rights" issue on par with the right against search and seizure.

I am unsure why people would compare a fundamental constitutional liberty to some notion of quasi "rights" that somehow persist after you're dead.

Certain rights do persist after you're dead. If they didn't, wills wouldn't exist.

also, it would be acceptable to dig up dead children to have sex with them (provided you got the ok of the owner of the place where they are buried to do so, etc.)

Certain rights do persist after you're dead. If they didn't, wills wouldn't exist.

That's not exactly right. Wills are more complicated than that. Don't think of a will as property you give away after you're dead. You can't do that. Property rights terminate on death. You don't own anything to give away once you die.

Think of wills rather as the..last act of the living, your final gifts before death. As a matter of law, wills don't take effect after death, they literally take effect the instant before death. We just don't find out what it was until after.

also, it would be acceptable to dig up dead children to have sex with them (provided you got the ok of the owner of the place where they are buried to do so, etc.)

Nonsense. Necrophilia is a crime by statute, not some "right" of the corpse. It's illegal because the government decided that it was a public health issue (and general moral issue) and criminalized it. If they did not take the affirmative step to criminalize it by statute, it would be legal.

In fact, there was a case in the US in the early 1800s, I forget the name, have to look it up. Someone was arrested exactly for that, necrophilia. But the crime of necrophilia wasn't specifically mentioned, so the courts set him free, because what he did was not a crime.

There's no "default" prohibition on necrophilia because of some "rights of the corpse". It's a crime because the state made it a crime, and they can unmake it any time.

to clarify, as a general rule, corpses don't really have rights. Even the idea of a "will" doesn't work. You can't give property to someone else after you've died. You're dead, you don't own it anymore. You have no property to give, corpses can't own stuff.

What you can do is set up an agency, called your estate, and upon your death the property is transfered to the estate and distributes it bound on the orders you created while you are alive.

Wills do not function by giving the dead person any rights. Wills function by allowing a person to set up rules governing the estate, a seperate legal entity, from managing the property after he dies, while he is still alive.

That person doesn't have rights when he dies. His right exists in creating rules of the estate, while he is alive, rules that the estate is bound to once he dies.

Nonsense. Necrophilia is a crime by statute, not some "right" of the corpse. It's illegal because the government decided that it was a public health issue (and general moral issue) and criminalized it. If they did not take the affirmative step to criminalize it by statute, it would be legal.

In fact, there was a case in the US in the early 1800s, I forget the name, have to look it up. Someone was arrested exactly for that, necrophilia. But the crime of necrophilia wasn't specifically mentioned, so the courts set him free, because what he did was not a crime.

There's no "default" prohibition on necrophilia because of some "rights of the corpse". It's a crime because the state made it a crime, and they can unmake it any time.Problem: Only applies to the US.
In Germany, necrophilia and graverobbery fall under the blanket term "Disturbance of the Rest/Peace of the Dead", which does imply a certain right retained by the dead.

Though, that is largely irrelevant, since we're talking about the United State of Britain...

Problem: Only applies to the US.

Well yes, sorry, my legal expertise really only pertains to the US so that's really all I'm capable of talking about in that regard.

In Germany, necrophilia and graverobbery fall under the blanket term "Disturbance of the Rest/Peace of the Dead", which does imply a certain right retained by the dead.

Hmm, that is rather interesting, I did not know that. I wonder though if the law is thought of in those terms, or is simply refered to as such as some sort of holdover.

Well yes, sorry, my legal expertise really only pertains to the US so that's really all I'm capable of talking about in that regard.

Of course, a great deal of US law came from English common law, did it not? Most of our ideas about property, wills, etc. came directly out of it, from what I understand.

SUPPORTING presumed consent.


It's definitely a good idea.



Obviously opinions will differ, but figuratively I couldn't imagine not wanting to save someone's life after I'm dead!

Problem: Only applies to the US.
In Germany, necrophilia and graverobbery fall under the blanket term "Disturbance of the Rest/Peace of the Dead", which does imply a certain right retained by the dead.

Though, that is largely irrelevant, since we're talking about the United State of Britain...

Does "Disturbance of the Peace of the Dead" imply a right of the corpse?

Perhaps not.

It could be a simple shorthand figure of speech, like "Acts of God" doesn't actually mean plagues of locusts or a bloody Nile.

Of course, a great deal of US law came from English common law, did it not? Most of our ideas about property, wills, etc. came directly out of it, from what I understand.Which would be relevant if they had remained the same. If I am not much mistaken, in America you'd be allowed to shoot someone trespassing on your land whereas in Britain, the owner needs to make a footpath for you so as not to impede your right to free movement.

Does "Disturbance of the Peace of the Dead" imply a right of the corpse?

Perhaps not.

It could be a simple shorthand figure of speech, like "Acts of God" doesn't actually mean plagues of locusts or a bloody Nile."Peace of the Dead" is one word, actually, so it very well might.

Which would be relevant if they had remained the same. If I am not much mistaken, in America you'd be allowed to shoot someone trespassing on your land whereas in Britain, the owner needs to make a footpath for you so as not to impede your right to free movement.

(a) You can generally only shoot someone if they're threatening you. You can have them arrested for trespassing if they just happen to be on your land.

(b) What does this have to do with common law on wills and the like?

That's not exactly right. Wills are more complicated than that. Don't think of a will as property you give away after you're dead. You can't do that. Property rights terminate on death. You don't own anything to give away once you die.

Think of wills rather as the..last act of the living, your final gifts before death. As a matter of law, wills don't take effect after death, they literally take effect the instant before death. We just don't find out what it was until after.But nonetheless, is there not a set process for the distribution of a person's property after death if a will doesn't exist?

Nonsense. Necrophilia is a crime by statute, not some "right" of the corpse. It's illegal because the government decided that it was a public health issue (and general moral issue) and criminalized it. If they did not take the affirmative step to criminalize it by statute, it would be legal.

since when does legality matter? come on, everyone ought to be so familiar with the argument by now that we don't have to run through this each time. should necrophilia be illegal? if necrophilia were legal, would it be morally acceptable to dig up dead children to fuck?

is/fucking ought.

But nonetheless, is there not a set process for the distribution of a person's property after death if a will doesn't exist?

Yup. It's presumed that the deceased would have given it to next-of-kin.

Edit: So, when you really think about it, presuming things about the prior wishes of someone who dies isn't all that unusual in the law at all.

Yup. It's presumed that the deceased would have given it to next-of-kin.Indeed.
The state doesn't seize the person's property and distribute it to someone else of the state's choosing.

Indeed.
The state doesn't seize the person's property and distribute it to someone else of the state's choosing.

Well, it does if there is no next-of-kin to use the property.

But nonetheless, is there not a set process for the distribution of a person's property after death if a will doesn't exist?

certainly, but that doesn't speak to some idea of the "rights" of the dead. If anything it speaks to the rights of the living to have a default position in the distribution of property of deceased relatives.

Indeed.
The state doesn't seize the person's property and distribute it to someone else of the state's choosing.

yes, but again, that's not the right of "the dead". That's a created right of the living to inherent, and, again we actually see it, a presumed decision of the deceased made while he was still alive.

A "right", in a legal sense, is a thing that can be exercised. You have a right ot free speech which you may exercise by speaking. You have a right to property, which you may exercise by buying, owning, and gifting property.

The government also defend those right by force of law. The dead do not have rights. They can't exercise anything. They're dead.

The idea of a "will" is not the dead exercising a right. It's the living person exercising his right to set rules for his estate, which shall trigger in the event of his death.

yes, but again, that's not the right of "the dead". That's a created right of the living to inherent, and, again we actually see it, a presumed decision of the deceased made while he was still alive.

A "right", in a legal sense, is a thing that can be exercised. You have a right ot free speech which you may exercise by speaking. You have a right to property, which you may exercise by buying, owning, and gifting property.

The government also defend those right by force of law. The dead do not have rights. They can't exercise anything. They're dead.

The idea of a "will" is not the dead exercising a right. It's the living person exercising his right to set rules for his estate, which shall trigger in the event of his death.Okay, but why would these rights not also extend to the person's internal organs?

Okay, but why would these rights not also extend to the person's internal organs?

Because lives aren't at stake.

But actually, they do. The person would still have the right to say 'No'. The difference is that the 'No' would no longer be presumed.

Okay, but why would these rights not also extend to the person's internal organs?

Essentially, they do. Whether you're in an opt-in or an opt-out system, the next-of-kin can can make the decision when the person dies.

I always find it rather funny when people think that doctors are going to kill them off to have access to their organs. They assume that the fact that doctors try hard to save others somehow translates into doctors not trying equally hard to save them...

Well, I certainly don't think that a doctor will wake up in the morning and ask "so, who do we sacrifice today?" Such explicitly psychopathic behavior is relatively rare.

However, there are all sorts of situations where medical professionals need to make very difficult decisions. All I want to ensure is that we continue to do what is obviously right, to do our best to provide the care needed for preserving as many lives as possible. I don't think it is that unreasonable to be concerned about the possibility of implementing programs that might cause people (whether on purpose or, far more likely, accidentally or unconsciously) to choose the "give up" option more often than they choose the "give it our best shot" option.

No, doctors aren't suddenly going to go into the organ black market en mass, but I don't think this aspect of the issue is so easily dismissed either.

However, there are all sorts of situations where medical professionals need to make very difficult decisions. All I want to ensure is that we continue to do what is obviously right, to do our best to provide the care needed for preserving as many lives as possible. I don't think it is that unreasonable to be concerned about the possibility of implementing programs that might cause people (whether on purpose or, far more likely, accidentally or unconsciously) to choose the "give up" option more often than they choose the "give it our best shot" option.

No, doctors aren't suddenly going to go into the organ black market en mass, but I don't think this aspect of the issue is so easily dismissed either.

I do. I see no reason whatsoever to believe that doctors are going to give up on saving people more often simply because their organs might possibly maybe be useful to other people. I find such sentiments to be nothing but paranoid BS. The trauma patient who comes in is no less a patient than the dialysis patient a few floors up.

It wouldn't be inconsistent of Trollgaard to accept the blood, but it would be inconsistent of him to compel others to donate it.

My gut reaction is no, I wouldn't want the blood. And no, other's don't have to give blood, or organs if they don't want to. And for their organs to be harvested upon death, that requires them saying 'yes, I want to donate my organs' sometime during their lives. If they never declare that, then they haven't given consent, and taking their organs would be theft and desecration.

If they never declare that, then they haven't given consent, and taking their organs would be theft and desecration.

Theft huh? Let me ask this. Theft..from whom?

Let's just say it's like a Death Tax. Only you pay in kidneys and livers.

How about not?

Is there such a think as a death tax? If so, it should be abolished. Same with the inheritance tax.

Theft huh? Let me ask this. Theft..from whom?

From the dead. It'd be like grave-robbing.

Don't play stupid.

Because lives aren't at stake.True, and I'm not saying necessarily that the system shouldn't be different for organs than with other types of property, just that the disposal of a person's body is the same as their property as a default position.
Certainly arguing lives at stake is a possible reason to change from organs being dealt with the same as other forms of property to being dealt with differently.

But actually, they do. The person would still have the right to say 'No'. The difference is that the 'No' would no longer be presumed.The government doesn't presume that just because there's no will, the dead wants the government to seize their property, do they?

Essentially, they do. Whether you're in an opt-in or an opt-out system, the next-of-kin can can make the decision when the person dies.They'll keep you on ice until your next of kin can be found? Interesting.

The government doesn't presume that just because there's no will, the dead wants the government to seize their property, do they?

They do, however, presume that you wanted to give it to your family. I see no difference here. In the absence of a clear, definitive statement from the deceased stating the contrary, the government assumes that he/she intended to help provide for his/her family.

How is that any different from, in the absence of a clear, definitive statement from the deceased stating the contrary, the government assumes that he/she intended to put his organs to good use and save lives?

They'll keep you on ice until your next of kin can be found? Interesting.

As long as they can. Many organs have a short period of viability. Heart and liver especially.

From the dead. It'd be like grave-robbing.

Don't play stupid.

I'm stupid? Well, since I'm so stupid, perhaps you can explain to me how one can steal from the dead, because, and again, I'm so stupid I might not understand properly, but in order to steal from the dead, wouldn't that require the dead to own something?

So, how do the dead own property?

They do, however, presume that you wanted to give it to your family. I see no difference here. In the absence of a clear, definitive statement from the deceased stating the contrary, the government assumes that he/she intended to help provide for his/her family.

How is that any different from, in the absence of a clear, definitive statement from the deceased stating the contrary, the government assumes that he/she intended to put his organs to good use and save lives?Because if it were the former, the person's corpse would be going to the family and not to the state.

As long as they can. Many organs have a short period of viability. Heart and liver especially.Understandable, which is why I don't think it's likely that they would keep the person on ice for that long, especially if the family can't be found within a week or so.

I'm stupid? Well, since I'm so stupid, perhaps you can explain to me how one can steal from the dead, because, and again, I'm so stupid I might not understand properly, but in order to steal from the dead, wouldn't that require the dead to own something?

So, how do the dead own property?

I didn't say you were stupid. I said you were acting stupid, because everyone knows that you aren't stupid.

How can you steal from the dead? Dig up a corpse and taking jewelery from it. Taking the organs from the corpse when the person never stated they wanted to be a donor in their entire lives- that is stealing.

Those sound like stealing.

Because if it were the former, the person's corpse would be going to the family and not to the state.

*grumble* I didn't mean so literally. I mean how is it different conceptually, morally, ethically, from assuming that the deceased wanted his property to benefit his family than assuming that the deceased wanted his organs to benefit the ill?

*grumble* I didn't mean so literally. I mean how is it different conceptually, morally, ethically, from assuming that the deceased wanted his property to benefit his family than assuming that the deceased wanted his organs to benefit the ill?

If the ill aren't in the family, your argument doesn't fly.

*grumble* I didn't mean so literally. I mean how is it different conceptually, morally, ethically, from assuming that the deceased wanted his property to benefit his family than assuming that the deceased wanted his organs to benefit the ill?

I suppose inasmuch as the state doesn't default to giving the deceased's belongings to charity.

Incidentally, in the absence of a written will on how to dispose of the organs, can next of kin make the decision of what to do with them?

I didn't say you were stupid. I said you were acting stupid, because everyone knows that you aren't stupid.

How can you steal from the dead? Dig up a corpse and taking jewelery from it. Taking the organs from the corpse when the person never stated they wanted to be a donor in their entire lives- that is stealing.

Those sound like stealing.

the sound you hear is the sound of the point wooshing over your head. The jewelery on the corpse. Who owns it? The organs in the body, whose are they?

How do you steal from a corpse?

Who was it that failed your education so badly that you have developed the nonsensical proposition that the dead can own property?

the sound you hear is the sound of the point wooshing over your head. The jewelery on the corpse. Who owns it? The organs in the body, whose are they?

How do you steal from a corpse?

Who was it that failed your education so badly that you have developed the nonsensical proposition that the dead can own property?

Well, one thing's for sure. In certain parts of the US, the dead have the right to vote, and occasionally utilize it.

Edit: Lest I be jumped on, this post was made in jest, and is not an attempt to support either side.

Incidentally, in the absence of a written will on how to dispose of the organs, can next of kin make the decision of what to do with them?

Frankly I'm not positive. If the potential donor has not made his intention clear one way or the other, I believe the next of kin can decide.

Frankly I'm not positive. If the potential donor has not made his intention clear one way or the other, I believe the next of kin can decide.

Hmm, ok. I'm going to have to look into this now when I get a chance.

*grumble* I didn't mean so literally. I mean how is it different conceptually, morally, ethically, from assuming that the deceased wanted his property to benefit his family than assuming that the deceased wanted his organs to benefit the ill?

I suppose inasmuch as the state doesn't default to giving the deceased's belongings to charity.This is what I meant, yes.

Certainly one could argue that the state should give the deceased's belongings to charity, and therefore the taking of organs would be consistent with this. However, there is a difference here, and I'm just pointing it out. As I said to LG, perhaps lives being at stake is a sufficient reason for there to be a difference, but nonetheless there is a difference.

the sound you hear is the sound of the point wooshing over your head. The jewelery on the corpse. Who owns it? The organs in the body, whose are they?

How do you steal from a corpse?

Who was it that failed your education so badly that you have developed the nonsensical proposition that the dead can own property?

...

So, its ok to dig up the dead and take their jewelry? I could have sworn that was called grave-robbing, which sounds like the dead have a right not to be stolen from. And people own their bodies, whether living or dead. You can't just take something without permission.

Also, how can someone consent do something when they never said they wanted to?

...

So, its ok to dig up the dead and take their jewelry? I could have sword that was called grave-robbing-which sounds like the dead have a right not to be stolen from.

Only if you want to take antiquated common-law traditional definitions literally

They'll keep you on ice until your next of kin can be found? Interesting.

No, but they don't do that in any case. If your next of kin cannot be contacted quickly, your body is disposed of in a manner determined by the state.

Of course, it's rather rare for a person to suffer brain death and no one can be found to speak for them....


As long as they can. Many organs have a short period of viability. Heart and liver especially.

As a probably unnecessary clarification, they wouldn't "keep you on ice." Organs can be taken from those who suffer brain death. They keep the body on life support until the organs can be harvested.

Incidentally, in the absence of a written will on how to dispose of the organs, can next of kin make the decision of what to do with them?

I don't know about the UK, but in the US, yes. In all honesty, the next-of-kin can actually override stated wishes of the deceased. Even if someone carries a donor card (or has "Organ donor" on their driver's license), the family is asked. If the family says no, the organs cannot be used.

Only if you want to take antiquated common-law traditional definitions literally

What the hell?

It will always be a crime to dig a corpse and take whatever it has on!

Seriously, WTF?

...

So, its ok to dig up the dead and take their jewelry? I could have sworn that was called grave-robbing, which sounds like the dead have a right not to be stolen from. And people own their bodies, whether living or dead. You can't just take something without permission.

Also, how can someone consent do something when they never said they wanted to?

It may sound like that, but that isn't actually the case. It's more that the law recognizes that the living should not be traumatized by having the graves of family members, etc. disturbed. Also, there is a very real and near-universal disgust associated with such things - the acts "shock the conscience", as it were.

OK, let's see if I can make this clear and simple.

Are you under the honest impression that the dead can own property?

No, but they don't do that in any case. If your next of kin cannot be contacted quickly, your body is disposed of in a manner determined by the state.True, but the default manner chosen is typically the manner most people would choose.
If most people would choose to have their organs donated, then I would have no objections to it.
(Not that I necessarily have objections to organ donation as the default, either.)

Of course, it's rather rare for a person to suffer brain death and no one can be found to speak for them....You can almost always find someone, but not necessarily right away, especially if the next of kin doesn't live in the same city and hasn't come to the hospital.

This is what I meant, yes.

Certainly one could argue that the state should give the deceased's belongings to charity, and therefore the taking of organs would be consistent with this. However, there is a difference here, and I'm just pointing it out. As I said to LG, perhaps lives being at stake is a sufficient reason for there to be a difference, but nonetheless there is a difference.

Of course there is a difference. Neo wasn't claiming that there wasn't. I'm pretty sure his point (and I know it was mine) is that we're presuming either way.

We presume that, in the absence of written notice to the contrary, a person would want his belongings to go to his next-of-kin. We presume that because it is generally true and we meed something to default to.

We currently (in the US and also in the UK) presume that, in the absence of written notice, a person is opposed to having her organs used to save lives. However, this presumption does not seem to be generally true and making that presumption lowers the number of available organs. So the option is on the table of presuming that, in the absence of written notice, a person is not opposed to having her organs used to save lives.

Of course there is a difference. Neo wasn't claiming that there wasn't. I'm pretty sure his point (and I know it was mine) is that we're presuming either way.

We presume that, in the absence of written notice to the contrary, a person would want his belongings to go to his next-of-kin. We presume that because it is generally true and we meed something to default to.Certainly.
What I'm saying is that the presumptions are different in one case than in the other. If we presume one thing in one case, why presume a different thing in a different case? Why not have a presumption that is the same for both? That organs save lives is one possible reason.

We currently (in the US and also in the UK) presume that, in the absence of written notice, a person is opposed to having her organs used to save lives. However, this presumption does not seem to be generally true and making that presumption lowers the number of available organs. So the option is on the table of presuming that, in the absence of written notice, a person is not opposed to having her organs used to save lives.Which is fine, but it's a different type of presumption.

True, but the default manner chosen is typically the manner most people would choose.
If most people would choose to have their organs donated, then I would have no objections to it.
(Not that I necessarily have objections to organ donation as the default, either.)

From what I can tell, most people either don't want to think about it or don't care. Most people who aren't organ donors aren't really opposed to the idea, they simply are too apathetic to take action to become organ donors.

A move to an opt-out system would allow those who are actually opposed to make that known - in all the same ways that you can currently become an organ donor (and more, probably). But it would catch the apathetic as well.

You can almost always find someone, but not necessarily right away, especially if the next of kin doesn't live in the same city and hasn't come to the hospital.

Indeed. And if you cannot find someone within a set amount of time, the authorities decide what to do.

Certainly.
What I'm saying is that the presumptions are different in one case than in the other. If we presume one thing in one case, why presume a different thing in a different case? Why not have a presumption that is the same for both?

You already answered your question. They are different cases - different issues. That means we must look at the situations separately.

OK, let's see if I can make this clear and simple.

Are you under the honest impression that the dead can own property?

Definitely no.

Definitely no.

pft, not you.

From what I can tell, most people either don't want to think about it or don't care. Most people who aren't organ donors aren't really opposed to the idea, they simply are too apathetic to take action to become organ donors.

A move to an opt-out system would allow those who are actually opposed to make that known - in all the same ways that you can currently become an organ donor (and more, probably). But it would catch the apathetic as well.This is true.

Indeed. And if you cannot find someone within a set amount of time, the authorities decide what to do.Would the set amount of time be the same for organs and other belongings?

You already answered your question. They are different cases - different issues. That means we must look at the situations separately.True, but the argument being made about the presumption was one that applies to both cases.
The life saving argument only applies to one.

Would the set amount of time be the same for organs and other belongings?

No. We can afford to wait longer on property. If we waited the same amount of time on organs, they'd be useless anyways.

Edit: Note that "what do to do with the body" would also have a shorter length of time than what to do with property. We can let property sit for much longer than a body.

True, but the argument being made about the presumption was one that applies to both cases.

Why would it apply to both cases? The act of presuming applies to both cases. I see no reason that the same presumption should be made in both cases.

The life saving argument only applies to one.

And the general sense - the "usual answer" - about each is different as well.

I know many of you good folks on NS are 'Born again Atheists' who think that believing in God(s) makes you an inhuman moron, but for those of us who do have religious beliefs and feel the need to keep ourselves intact at death we should be allowed. And yes, I know allot of you are going to yell at me and poke fun at me for saying this but many religions require you to be whole for whatever comes next and that's perfectly fine.

I wouldn't want to be a donor because I worry about the afterlife and for all we know we may need to be intact, we may not be. Better safe then sorry. Sides I'd feel better knowing that I won't be ripped apart upon death.

As for assuming guilty until innocent so to speak, it's wrong. People should be put down as N/A or no until they tell someone yes and fill out the forms. I do agree tho that if you say no you should not be entitled to get an organ transplanted if you were to need it. That's only fair.

I know many of you good folks on NS are 'Born again Atheists' who think that believing in God(s) makes you an inhuman moron, but for those of us who do have religious beliefs and feel the need to keep ourselves intact at death we should be allowed.

Of course, you have your religious beliefs, and a situation should be in place to honor them.

If you don't want your organs harvested, feel free to sign the form.

No. We can afford to wait longer on property. If we waited the same amount of time on organs, they'd be useless anyways.

Edit: Note that "what do to do with the body" would also have a shorter length of time than what to do with property. We can let property sit for much longer than a body.Makes sense.

Why would it apply to both cases? The act of presuming applies to both cases.Yes, this is what I meant. The argument I was initially referring to dealt with the act of presuming.

I see no reason that the same presumption should be made in both cases.Perhaps it shouldn't be.

OK, let's see if I can make this clear and simple.

Are you under the honest impression that the dead can own property?

What they are buried with, and their bodies, yes.

Their estates go to whoever is in their will, or next of kin. And sometimes the government if there is no will or next of kin.

What they are buried with, and their bodies, yes.


Well, ignorance abounds, I suppose.

Well, ignorance abounds, I suppose.

So a corpse does not own what it is buried with? It is fine to go around and dig up graves and take what you find? Yeah, right.

A)

So a corpse does not own what it is buried with?

B)

It is fine to go around and dig up graves and take what you find?

A != B

The fact that it's a crime to dig up graves and take the contents therein does not, in any way have to do with some inane idea of the corpse "owning" it. It's a crime, certainly, but the fact that it's a crime isn't because you're stealing from a corpse. A corpse can not own property, thus you can not steal from it

A)



B)



A != B

The fact that it's a crime to dig up graves and take the contents therein does not, in any way have to do with some inane idea of the corpse "owning" it. It's a crime, certainly, but the fact that it's a crime isn't because you're stealing from a corpse. A corpse can not own property, thus you can not steal from it

Maybe it's a crime because it's not taxable yet. You know the government. It's filled with overpaid overhyped underworked politicains who would rather be skinned alive, salted, and immediately boiled in oil and sent to the deepest, coldest reaches of hell than take any form of pay cut.

Presumed consent sounds good to me.

A)



B)



A != B

The fact that it's a crime to dig up graves and take the contents therein does not, in any way have to do with some inane idea of the corpse "owning" it. It's a crime, certainly, but the fact that it's a crime isn't because you're stealing from a corpse. A corpse can not own property, thus you can not steal from it

I agree I corpse can't own, a house, for example, but it sure as hell does have the right to be left in piece, with its body left as intact as possible, with whatever is buried with it.

Unless a person states they want to be an organ donor, they have not given consent, and their organs cannot be taken.

I agree I corpse can't own, a house, for example, but it sure as hell does have the right to be left in piece, with its body left as intact as possible, with whatever is buried with it.

And once again, a corpse has no rights, under law or equity, as it is not alive. This parrot is no more, it has ceased to be. It is an ex parrot. The dead can not exercise any legal rights, therefore it has no rights, no more so than a rock.

You have to understand, that's the crux of it: the people who advocated these measures are always part of their self-chosen elite who deserve to survive after one of their euphemistically named "population control" measures comes in to effect, all of which refer to the outright extermination of billions of people.

In their mind, it is never going to be them or anyone they care about that will be victims, because if that were the case it would cause them to realize that other people are, amazingly, just like them...they have families, friends, hopes, dreams, and everything else, and deserve as much right to live as they do. Keeping the human population dehumanized allows them to refer to it as nothing more than a statistic, making it easy to support something that really is nothing more than genocide by omission.

Ah. That makes more sense, thanks. Mind, I still think it's stupid and selfish to take your organs with you when you die, but I'll admit to my own biases on that front.

I'm against this measure. It's about choice, damnit! What's next, forced extraction from the living? "You don't really need 2 whole kidneys to survive so I'll be taking one."

If I want to be buried intact in a lavish tomb of my design I should be able to without fear of grave-robbing doctors pillaging my corpse for tissue. Besides, there are artificial hearts, lungs, and it's really only a matter of time before someone shrinks dialysis machines to the size of a kidney and other life-support equipment to their respective sizes of the organ's whose function they replace. And what about healthy prisoners? Now there is an untapped resource. Those brick houses are practically organ banks and it's time those lifers give something back to the societies they've wronged.

Vote Indri for Emperor of America and I will make the world my bitch.

I'm against this measure. It's about choice, damnit!

You're quite right, it's about choice. Now please tell me who will not be able to have their choice under this system.

You're quite right, it's about choice. Now please tell me who will not be able to have their choice under this system.
If you want to donate your organs all you have to do is say so. This system assumes you do and the only way to stop that from happening is to conquer a mountain of paper and threaten legal action if they ignore that. The dying should not have to spend their last days filling out forms just to make sure that they don't get cut up like a pig in a biology class or sausage factory. Cut a few cons until artificial organ technology is perfected.

If you want to donate your organs all you have to do is say so. This system assumes you do and the only way to stop that from happening is to conquer a mountain of paper and threaten legal action if they ignore that. The dying should not have to spend their last days filling out forms just to make sure that they don't get cut up like a pig in a biology class or sausage factory. Cut a few cons until artificial organ technology is perfected.

Uh huh, so countries like...spain that have this system would have all these problems, right?

Surely then you can provide evidence of that, right?

Besides, there are artificial hearts, lungs, and it's really only a matter of time before someone shrinks dialysis machines to the size of a kidney and other life-support equipment to their respective sizes of the organ's whose function they replace.

'Only a matter of time' doesn't help those who are dying now. And opting out would be just as easy (maybe even easier, depending on the method) as opting in currently is. And more people get to continue breathing. I fail to see the problem here.

Cut a few cons until artificial organ technology is perfected.

Because you give up all right to sovereignty over your body when you go to prison... Right. And since you could opt out of a presumed consent system, the comparison isn't even valid.

And once again, a corpse has no rights, under law or equity, as it is not alive. This parrot is no more, it has ceased to be. It is an ex parrot. The dead can not exercise any legal rights, therefore it has no rights, no more so than a rock.

What the hell man.

Seriously.

You don't think a person has the right to rest in piece once they die? You don't think that the dead deserve respect?

Even if not for the recently deceased, then for the family. If the person never gave consent during his/her lifetime then taking the organs anyway would be wrong.

What matters is consent. To give consent someone has to verbally say so, and sign something declaring they give consent. Not taking any action is not giving consent. It is a simple as that.

You have to understand, that's the crux of it: the people who advocated these measures are always part of their self-chosen elite who deserve to survive after one of their euphemistically named "population control" measures comes in to effect, all of which refer to the outright extermination of billions of people.

In their mind, it is never going to be them or anyone they care about that will be victims, because if that were the case it would cause them to realize that other people are, amazingly, just like them...they have families, friends, hopes, dreams, and everything else, and deserve as much right to live as they do. Keeping the human population dehumanized allows them to refer to it as nothing more than a statistic, making it easy to support something that really is nothing more than genocide by omission.

Eh? What is this about?

What the hell man.

Seriously.

You don't think a person has the right to rest in piece once they die?

I don't think the dead have rights, period. It's an inane and idiotic proposition.

The dead, are dead. Dead do not have rights.

What matters is consent. To give consent someone has to verbally say so, and sign something declaring they give consent. Not taking any action is not giving consent. It is a simple as that.

Consent can be implied through ones actions. Fail

I don't think the dead have rights, period. It's an inane and idiotic proposition.

The dead, are dead. Dead do not have rights.



Consent can be implied through ones actions. Fail

Man, the dead have the right to not have their bodies desecrated and disturbed. And if the law doesn't support that, then the law is wrong-as it is many cases.

You aren't some god who decides who wins and loses.

In matters if great importance, such as what happens to you once you die, consent needs to declared beforehand. Any other way is wrong, and will most likely go against the wishes of many people.

maybe. on the other hand, not taking action can result in you losing your claim to something, whether you consent or not.

Not in the matter of your own body.

If the person never gave consent during his/her lifetime then taking the organs anyway would be wrong.

What matters is consent. To give consent someone has to verbally say so, and sign something declaring they give consent. Not taking any action is not giving consent. It is a simple as that.

maybe. on the other hand, not taking action can result in you losing your claim to something, whether you consent or not.

I don't think the dead have rights, period. It's an inane and idiotic proposition.

The dead, are dead. Dead do not have rights.

is there a wrong committed in fucking dead orphans?

is there a wrong committed in fucking dead orphans?

How, in any way, is that a relevant question. I can believe it's wrong to smoke pot while not believing that marijuana has a right not to be set on fire.

The vast majority of people neither give nor withhold consent with regard to organ donation–isn’t that the issue here? That people support the idea of organ donation but don’t bother with filling out the forms?
No, under UK law, citizens are currently presumed not to give consent to their organs being donated unless they fill out an organ donation form. So by default, under the law, consent is not given.

Presumed consent with police searches could easily lead to this.
True enough, but under UK law a citizen’s consent or not to their home being searched is not taken into consideration. The courts grant consent under their jurisdiction, not the citizens, for homes to be searched.

I’m saying that your specific argument, without elaboration = presumed consent across the board.
Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I just can’t see that. Let me re-state my argument, see if we can clear this up:

I fail to see the point in arguing against presumed consent with regards to organ donation on the grounds that presumed consent (with an easily available opt-out system) violates one’s right to decide what happens to one’s body. Surely a presumed non-consent policy (with an easily available opt-in system) violates one’s right to decide what happens to one’s body as much or as little as a presumed consent policy?

If person A can claim that their right is violated because the government presumes that they do give consent, then it follows that person B can claim that their right is violated because the government presumes that they don’t give consent. Person A would have to argue against both consent policies.

I don’t see how the above equals presumed consent across the board.

How, in any way, is that a relevant question.

because if it is wrong, it is wrong for some reason. the question then is what that reason is.

because if it is wrong, it is wrong for some reason. the question then is what that reason is.

What that reason is? The MASSIVE public health problem, for one.

What that reason is? The MASSIVE public health problem, for one.

I don't see why people's health problem are anyone else's problem than their own.

What that reason is? The MASSIVE public health problem, for one.

so, provided one scrubbed down, and had their shots, and kept the bodies in cold storage, etc, it's a-ok then?

I don't see why people's health problem are anyone else's problem than their own.

we've got these things called contagious diseases now.

so, provided one scrubbed down, and had their shots, and kept the bodies in cold storage, etc, it's a-ok then?

I suppose one could argue from a position of morality...personally I don't give a fuck.

However, as I said, it has nothing to do with the rights of the dead. Dead have no rights.

I don't see why people's health problem are anyone else's problem than their own.

go away child, adults are talking now.

we've got these things called contagious diseases now.

What?! And all this time I thought they were caused by evil spirits...damn.

When it comes to "rights of the dead", I would imagine that any postmortem activities are delineated by the person, and barring that the person's family would make those decisions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?Forgive if this already showed up ... but does it seem to anyone else that Britain is QUICKLY turning into one of the NS nations?

You're right, Neo, people don't have rights. The whims of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Right now myself and a few associates, all fairly healthy, would still like to have a some extra organs, backups if you will. We're going to presume that you consent to being vivisected for our well-being and put you in the auto-doc. Then it's prep-time for our surgeries!

If you don't think the dead have rights then you wouldn't mind if someone pissed on your grave and fed your rotting carcass to wolves. For some reason I think that idea wouldn't sit quite right with many people. I'm not going to assume to know what you want done with your body after you die, you'll have to tell people who can be trusted with that before you cease to be or at least make a note of it. On the back of my ID is my organ donor status, if I die and someone needs my heart the docs have permission to take it. They can do that because I gave them permission, not because they have a right to cannibalize the bodies in their morgue. Respect the dead and I'll respect you.

How we deal with death is as important as how we deal with life.

You're right, Neo, people don't have rights. The whims of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. Right now myself and a few associates, all fairly healthy, would still like to have a some extra organs, backups if you will. We're going to presume that you consent to being vivisected for our well-being and put you in the auto-doc. Then it's prep-time for our surgeries!

If you don't think the dead have rights then you wouldn't mind if someone pissed on your grave and fed your rotting carcass to wolves. For some reason I think that idea wouldn't sit quite right with many people. I'm not going to assume to know what you want done with your body after you die, you'll have to tell people who can be trusted with that before you cease to be or at least make a note of it. On the back of my ID is my organ donor status, if I die and someone needs my heart the docs have permission to take it. They can do that because I gave them permission, not because they have a right to cannibalize the bodies in their morgue. Respect the dead and I'll respect you.

How we deal with death is as important as how we deal with life.Matrix AND Star Trek?
:)

Matrix AND Star Trek?
:)
Where's the Matirx? I was talking about a Niven story and Star Trek.

Where's the Matirx? I was talking about a Niven story and Star Trek.
Ah, you meant Neo ART. My bad. :p

It is an excellent proposal. One thing that there should be is a "semi-opt-out" - I.e. I have no qualms about donating most of my organs, and don't want them wasted when they could help others, but I will not donate my eyes or heart, so some provision for this would be sensible to stop people opting out completely who don't really want to, but don't want certain things touched.

No, under UK law, citizens are currently presumed not to give consent to their organs being donated unless they fill out an organ donation form. So by default, under the law, consent is not given.Right - unless they fill out the form, as you said.

True enough, but under UK law a citizen’s consent or not to their home being searched is not taken into consideration. The courts grant consent under their jurisdiction, not the citizens, for homes to be searched.But surely the person's right to not have their home searched is taken into account - after all, why would the courts be involved at all if it weren't?

Perhaps I’m being obtuse, but I just can’t see that. Let me re-state my argument, see if we can clear this up:

I fail to see the point in arguing against presumed consent with regards to organ donation on the grounds that presumed consent (with an easily available opt-out system) violates one’s right to decide what happens to one’s body. Surely a presumed non-consent policy (with an easily available opt-in system) violates one’s right to decide what happens to one’s body as much or as little as a presumed consent policy?

If person A can claim that their right is violated because the government presumes that they do give consent, then it follows that person B can claim that their right is violated because the government presumes that they don’t give consent. Person A would have to argue against both consent policies.

I don’t see how the above equals presumed consent across the board.The problem is that you seem to be arguing that either presumption is equal. If either presumption is equal, then why wouldn't they be equal across the board?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7186007.stm

Currently you have to sign up to the organ donor register, then when you die hope that your organs are suitable for donation and your family don't act like assholes and stop the NHS taking them. Under a system of presumed consent, as is in Spain, for example, it would be 'presumed' (hence the name, duh) that you want to donate your organs, unless you've said otherwise. Of course, your family can still act like assholes and stop that.

As you may have been able to guess, I would support a change in the system. In fact, I'd go so far as to have my will say that my family gets shit if they try to stop my organs being donated.

So, views? Which system would you prefer?

Yep yep, I'm all for it.

The presumed consent lobby is mistaken in principle. It suggests that the State has rights which it does not. This is not a matter of state entitlement but of state efficiency. It is not doing a good enough job at encouraging donations.
If we want to increase the numbers but still respect the rights of the individual, the answer is not for the State to assume ownership of people's bodies as soon as they are dead. Instead, it is to ask them while they are still alive. Participation in society should require answering the question.
The article goes on to suggest that when people get a driving licence, or tax form, or census form, they should be asked whether they are willing to hand over their organs after their death or whether they would prefer not to. Answering this should be an obligation.
Is there anyone who can object to this proposal?

The presumed consent lobby is mistaken in principle. It suggests that the State has rights which it does not. This is not a matter of state entitlement but of state efficiency. It is not doing a good enough job at encouraging donations.
If we want to increase the numbers but still respect the rights of the individual, the answer is not for the State to assume ownership of people's bodies as soon as they are dead. Instead, it is to ask them while they are still alive. Participation in society should require answering the question.
The article goes on to suggest that when people get a driving licence, or tax form, or census form, they should be asked whether they are willing to hand over their organs after their death or whether they would prefer not to. Answering this should be an obligation.
Is there anyone who can object to this proposal?
Just because it's from the Times doesn't make it right. And I object to this proposal, because it is what we do already, strangely enough.

Newer, I do not understand your answer. What are we doing already?

Newer, I do not understand your answer. What are we doing already?
Bombarding people with leaflets. When I filled in my driver's licence, donate blood, visit the doctor, visit the dentist, go to hospital or receive information from the student's union, I get the same leaflet asking me to register on the donor's list.

This is not a leaflet which can be ignored. There will be a question in the form which will have to be answered, as a legal obligation.

Right–unless they fill out the form, as you said.
Correct.

But surely the person’s right to not have their home searched is taken into account–after all, why would the courts be involved at all if it weren’t?
Their right(s), sure, but not their consent.

The problem is that you seem to be arguing that either presumption is equal.
More accurately, I’d say that either presumption is as valid or invalid as the other. Primarily, I just don’t think it’s a good argument in these circumstances.

If either presumption is equal, then why wouldn’t they be equal across the board?
They would be if consent was presumed/not presumed across the board. It’s not though; presumed consent/non-consent doesn’t come into a large amount of the law.

This is not a leaflet which can be ignored. There will be a question in the form which will have to be answered, as a legal obligation.
Then how different is it really going to be to the situation with presumed consent? Either way, you end up with everybody being on a yes/no list, obtained by state action.

Forgive if this already showed up ... but does it seem to anyone else that Britain is QUICKLY turning into one of the NS nations?

The NS nation options don't give you the opt-out system. =(

You're right, Neo, people don't have rights.

Neo didn't say that, darling. He said that corpses don't have rights. He's technically correct. We like to think of the dead as if they have rights and feelings, but the truth of the matter is that laws pertaining to corpses have pretty much nothing to do with the dead and everything to do with the living.

On the back of my ID is my organ donor status, if I die and someone needs my heart the docs have permission to take it. They can do that because I gave them permission, not because they have a right to cannibalize the bodies in their morgue. Respect the dead and I'll respect you.

Bodies in the morgue would be useless for organ donation.


The problem is that you seem to be arguing that either presumption is equal. If either presumption is equal, then why wouldn't they be equal across the board?

It makes no difference to me if my personal mail comes addressed to me by my maiden name, my husband's name, or my hyphenated name. I'm not going to be offended or harmed regardless, so any presumptions they make on that count are equal.

Does this mean it makes no difference to me how I am addressed professionally - that confusion in my name in a professional setting might not make things difficult for me? The answer is no. The situation is different, and I need to be sure that the name I am published under matches the name I am known by in professional circles. I need to be sure that my paycheck goes in using my legal name. And so on...

Different situations call for different considerations.


If we want to increase the numbers but still respect the rights of the individual, the answer is not for the State to assume ownership of people's bodies as soon as they are dead.

No one has suggested that the state should assume ownership.

The article goes on to suggest that when people get a driving licence, or tax form, or census form, they should be asked whether they are willing to hand over their organs after their death or whether they would prefer not to. Answering this should be an obligation.
Is there anyone who can object to this proposal?

Not really, but it would be much more difficult to implement.

More accurately, I’d say that either presumption is as valid or invalid as the other. Primarily, I just don’t think it’s a good argument in these circumstances.

They would be if consent was presumed/not presumed across the board. It’s not though; presumed consent/non-consent doesn’t come into a large amount of the law.Okay, let me rephrase.
If either presumption is equally valid, then why shouldn't the same presumption be made across the board?

It makes no difference to me if my personal mail comes addressed to me by my maiden name, my husband's name, or my hyphenated name. I'm not going to be offended or harmed regardless, so any presumptions they make on that count are equal.

Does this mean it makes no difference to me how I am addressed professionally - that confusion in my name in a professional setting might not make things difficult for me? The answer is no. The situation is different, and I need to be sure that the name I am published under matches the name I am known by in professional circles. I need to be sure that my paycheck goes in using my legal name. And so on...

Different situations call for different considerations.Certainly.
And not only that, but those considerations are relevant, and you specified why they are relevant.
Chumblywumbly has not specified relevant differences.

Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't not opting out under a presumed consent system be considered consent for organ donation? I mean, if opting out is as easy or easier than opting in is now, if you can't be arsed to opt out, shouldn't that be good enough?

Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't not opting out under a presumed consent system be considered consent for organ donation? I mean, if opting out is as easy or easier than opting in is now, if you can't be arsed to opt out, shouldn't that be good enough?

Fuck no.

To give consent, you have to declare it. Not acting is not taking action, and therefore does not give consent.

I'm tired of restating this.

Fuck no.

To give consent, you have to declare it. Not acting is not taking action, and therefore does not give consent.

I'm tired of restating this.

Then opt out, for fuck's sake! No one is going to come and take your organs in the middle of the night. If you're in a presumed consent country, fill out the fucking form! If you're not, consider yourself lucky.

I'm failing to see why putting the burden on the person who doesn't want to donate is a bad thing.

Maybe I'm crazy, but wouldn't not opting out under a presumed consent system be considered consent for organ donation? I mean, if opting out is as easy or easier than opting in is now, if you can't be arsed to opt out, shouldn't that be good enough?

Yup.


Fuck no.

To give consent, you have to declare it. Not acting is not taking action, and therefore does not give consent.

So unconscious people brought to the hospital after a trauma should never be treated, then? They haven't expressly given consent...

Yup.



So unconscious people brought to the hospital after a trauma should never be treated, then? They haven't expressly given consent...

Yes, they should, as that is why they are being brought to the hospital.

And again, no action does not give consent.

Then opt out, for fuck's sake! No one is going to come and take your organs in the middle of the night. If you're in a presumed consent country, fill out the fucking form! If you're not, consider yourself lucky.

I'm failing to see why putting the burden on the person who doesn't want to donate is a bad thing.

Why don't you just opt in? Why is putting the burden on those who want to donate bad?

:eek:

Oh, neat! I would certainly support presumed consent. What is a dead body going to do with dead organs? Nothing. Unless you specify that you don't want your organs taken, you should be a humanitarian about it and let somebody else have them.

Sharing is caring. :D

Why is putting the burden on don't want to donate bad? If it's so important to you that your body remain intact after you die then filling out a form to that affect should be worth the time. Just like if you want to be cremated, or buried at sea, or something.

Yes, they should, as that is why they are being brought to the hospital.

So? A person who was knocked out in a car accident, for example, has not given consent to be brought to the hospital or to receive medical treatment. Why should we presume consent in that case?

And again, no action does not give consent.

Then why presume consent in treatment of trauma patients who cannot explicitly give consent?

Fuck no.

To give consent, you have to declare it. Not acting is not taking action, and therefore does not give consent.

I'm tired of restating this.

Maybe you keep restating it because you're wrong, and people keep pointing out that you're wrong, and you desire to keep right on being wrong.

Yes, they should, as that is why they are being brought to the hospital.

And again, no action does not give consent.

An unconscious person can consent to treatment in a hospital by the actions of others? So if I were to bash you over the head and bring you to a blood bank, then you have consented to donate blood? What if I killed you and told told the doctors to harvest your organs?

So? A person who was knocked out in a car accident, for example, has not given consent to be brought to the hospital or to receive medical treatment. Why should we presume consent in that case?



Then why presume consent in treatment of trauma patients who cannot explicitly give consent?

..............................................

We just do.

Organ donation and treating people from car accidents are not the same situation, and are treated differently.

..............................................

We just do.

So we presume consent and you're ok with that. Gotcha.

Organ donation and treating people from car accidents are not the same situation, and are treated differently.

Indeed. But your argument has been that consent always requires action. It is obvious that you don't believe this to be true. You'll have to find a different argument against presumed consent in organ donation.

Maybe you keep restating it because you're wrong, and people keep pointing out that you're wrong, and you desire to keep right on being wrong.

BS.

Nobody can agree on what consent means.

Fucking sad.



Well, here is the damn definition from dictionary.com
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
–noun
3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5. Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.


All those, 'cept the 5th one, mean action is necessary to give consent. Not taking any action != giving consent. End of story. Period.

I don't like saying this phrase, but it is appropriate.

You fail.

So we presume consent and you're ok with that. Gotcha.



Indeed. But your argument has been that consent always requires action. It is obvious that you don't believe this to be true. You'll have to find a different argument against presumed consent in organ donation.


Whatever. I don't even give a damn anymore, I'm just pissed.

Another reason?

Let the weak die or live on their own.

There.

Happy?

BS.

Nobody can agree on what consent means.

Fucking sad.



Well, here is the damn definition from dictionary.com
1. to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often fol. by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2. Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
–noun
3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4. agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5. Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.


All those, 'cept the 5th one, mean action is necessary to give consent. Not taking any action != giving consent. End of story. Period.

I don't like saying this phrase, but it is appropriate.

You fail.
That's funny, because you just said that it's ok to presume consent in the case of unconscious patients being brought to hospital. Care to explain how presuming that an unconscious person would consent to something is different from presuming a dead person would consent to something?
Whatever. I don't even give a damn anymore, I'm just pissed.

Another reason?

Let the weak die or live on their own.

There.

Happy?
And who are the weak exactly? And are the strong allowed receive help?

That's funny, because you just said that it's ok to presume consent in the case of unconscious patients being brought to hospital. Care to explain how presuming that an unconscious person would consent to something is different from presuming a dead person would consent to something?

And who are the weak exactly? And are the strong allowed receive help?

I never said it was ok. I just said that was the way it is (presuming people want medical treatment). But I'm fine with people receiving medical help, but not transplants.

Hell, maybe everyone should get checklist of what they want to happen to them if they are unconcious or dead so there is no room to get something wrong? Eh?

I really don't think that is necessary. I think a simple organ donor card, as it is now, is just fine.

Who are the weak? People needed transplants...
And the strong wouldn't need transplants, so they wouldn't need help.

Maybe I should clarify: let all people live or die on their own.

Whatever. I don't even give a damn anymore, I'm just pissed.

Logical inconsistencies can be very frustrating.

Another reason?

Let the weak die or live on their own.

There.

Happy?

Assuming that anyone who needs an organ transplant is "weak", does that mean we should outlaw organ transplants?

Logical inconsistencies can be very frustrating.



Assuming that anyone who needs an organ transplant is "weak", does that mean we should outlaw organ transplants?

Or blood transfusions.

Or pain meds.

Or really anything other than good ol'-fashioned "sitting there and waiting for the illness to kill you."

One wonders if Trollgaard even takes Tylenol or Advil. Clearly anyone afflicted with a migraine is "weak."

Well, here is the damn definition from dictionary.com

. . .

3. permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.

All those, 'cept the 5th one, mean action is necessary to give consent. Not taking any action != giving consent. End of story. Period.

Really, all of them mean action is necessary? What about that bolded word? Acquescence? What does that mean again?

Acquiescence is, most generally, "permission" given by silence or passiveness.

Hmm, so, by your definition consent can be given "by acquiescence" and acquiescence means permission granted by remaining silent, like, for example, willingly not singing a form stating you do not want your organs donated.

Gee, isn't that a giant kick in the fucking balls, huh? And remember, that's not my definition, that's yours.

What was that expression you used? Oh, right.

Fail.

I never said it was ok. I just said that was the way it is (presuming people want medical treatment). But I'm fine with people receiving medical help, but not transplants.
Eh, receiving a transplant is medical help.

Hell, maybe everyone should get checklist of what they want to happen to them if they are unconcious or dead so there is no room to get something wrong? Eh?
They already exist, sort of. Living wills and wills, respectively.

I really don't think that is necessary. I think a simple organ donor card, as it is now, is just fine.
As it is now there is a major lack of organ donation.

Who are the weak? People needed transplants...
And the strong wouldn't need transplants, so they wouldn't need help.

Maybe I should clarify: let all people live or die on their own.

Why? If we can help each other then why shouldn't we?

Assuming that anyone who needs an organ transplant is "weak", does that mean we should outlaw organ transplants?

Well, as much as I would like to, probably not. I'm fine with people who say they want to donate before they die having their organs taken and transplanted to someone else.

If you want to donate, say so.

Or blood transfusions.

Or pain meds.

Or really anything other than good ol'-fashioned "sitting there and waiting for the illness to kill you."

One wonders if Trollgaard even takes Tylenol or Advil. Clearly anyone afflicted with a migraine is "weak."

Haha, I took some Advil (actually I think it was Ibuprofin [sp?]) about...6-7 months ago. I don't remember taking anything else since then.

I don't think people should take medicine unless absolutely necessary. For most things people should just grin and bear it. Now, for major injuries pain meds are fine if you want to take them.

Haha, I took some Advil (actually I think it was Ibuprofin [sp?]) about...6-7 months ago. I don't remember taking anything else since then.

I don't think people should take medicine unless absolutely necessary. For most things people should just grin and bear it. Now, for major injuries pain meds are fine if you want to take them.

*chuckle* See, the funny thing there, the hilarious thing there, is that typically when a doctor prescribes medicine, it's because it's absolutely necessary. It's not like someone walking down the street goes "Hey, you know what you be awesome right now? Some albuterol. Yeah, that'll hit the spot."
No, generally people take albuterol when their lungs are closing up from an asthma attack and it's the only thing standing between them and an early grave.

The same goes for transplants. It's not like someone walking down the street suddenly goes, "Hey, you know what'd be nice? If I had a surgeon put someone else's kidney in where my own is now! Lemme go get that operation scheduled."
Generally speaking, when you get a transplant for a liver, kidney, heart, etc. it's because that transplanted organ is the one thing standing between you and an early grave.

And frankly, when faced with the decision of succumbing to your "weakness" or getting someone else's kidney, you'd be a fool not to get the operation.

Besides transplants. Emergency room care, for example, is fine.

What an absurdly arbitrary line to draw.

Eh, receiving a transplant is medical help.

Besides transplants. Emergency room care, for example, is fine.


They already exist, sort of. Living wills and wills, respectively.


Yeah, kind of.


As it is now there is a major lack of organ donation.


And I really don't see the problem.


Why? If we can help each other then why shouldn't we?

Unless they are friends or family,why? I don't mind giving to charities, but I'm not giving away my body to people I don't even know, and probably wouldn't have wanted to know anyway.

Well, as much as I would like to, probably not. I'm fine with people who say they want to donate before they die having their organs taken and transplanted to someone else.

If you want to donate, say so.

Ok, so once again, your argument isn't that the "weak" should die.

At this point, all we seem to have is "The opt-out system is bad because Trollgaard says so."

Ok, so once again, your argument isn't that the "weak" should die.

At this point, all we seem to have is "The opt-out system is bad because Trollgaard says so."

What I find funny is how Trollgard is so damned convinced that needing an organ replacement is always genetic, as if somehow if your father managed to not get hit by a mac truck running a red light sending shrapnel into your kidney, you won't either.

Or that should it happen to someone makes that person weak.

Which is the problem, he's argued that consent requires action, and his own source proves him wrong. He argued that only the "weak" need it anyway, but that's simply not true.

So really, I think that's all he has left, after trying to argue that consent always requires action, he provides a definition demonstrating that it does not. He argues a position that's demonstrably false. I mean when your own source goes against you...what do you have left but hyperboli and nonsense?

*chuckle* See, the funny thing there, the hilarious thing there, is that typically when a doctor prescribes medicine, it's because it's absolutely necessary. It's not like someone walking down the street goes "Hey, you know what you be awesome right now? Some albuterol. Yeah, that'll hit the spot."
No, generally people take albuterol when their lungs are closing up from an asthma attack and it's the only thing standing between them and an early grave.

The same goes for transplants. It's not like someone walking down the street suddenly goes, "Hey, you know what'd be nice? If I had a surgeon put someone else's kidney in where my own is now! Lemme go get that operation scheduled."
Generally speaking, when you get a transplant for a liver, kidney, heart, etc. it's because that transplanted organ is the one thing standing between you and an early grave.

And frankly, when faced with the decision of succumbing to your "weakness" or getting someone else's kidney, you'd be a fool not to get the operation.

Oh right, doctors always prescribe the right medicine? Just like all the kids with ADD and given ritalin (sp?) really need it? Yeah.

And no one in my family has ever need a transplant. I'm really not worries about it.

Oh right, doctors always prescribe the right medicine? Just like all the kids with ADD and given ritalin (sp?) really need it? Yeah.

And no one in my family has ever need a transplant. I'm really not worries about it.

Needing a transplant isn't always genetic. There is this thing called buckshot.

Unless they are friends or family,why? I don't mind giving to charities, but I'm not giving away my body to people I don't even know, and probably wouldn't have wanted to know anyway.

Yeah. That might be something Christ would do. :p

Yeah. That might be something Christ would do. :p

One has to wonder if the Red Cross sends Jesus those "Thanks for donating x-amount of blood" letters. I'd imagine they have a person set aside whose job it is to figure out precisely how much holy-blood-wine has been served every Sunday and to send a weekly letter to heaven.

Am I supposed to feel sad? 'cause I don't. I'm not a Christian, and I don't care what Christ would have done.

Way to let the joke fly over your head so quickly and steeply that it has ended up in a retrograde orbit around the earth.

Way to let the joke fly over your head so quickly and steeply that it has ended up a retrograde orbit around the earth.

Figured there was more to and than a lame joke...

Yeah. That might be something Christ would do. :p

Am I supposed to feel sad? 'cause I don't. I'm not a Christian, and I don't care what Christ would have done.

Well, as much as I would like to, probably not. I'm fine with people who say they want to donate before they die having their organs taken and transplanted to someone else.

If you want to donate, say so.
Why can't it go the other way? If you don't want to donate, say so. Just like you have to specifically state that you do not want to be resuscitated, or get a blood transfusion.
Besides transplants. Emergency room care, for example, is fine.
To echo DM, how arbitrary.



Yeah, kind of.
I don't think they come in checklist form though.



And I really don't see the problem.
Because you, evidently, are totally lacking in empathy towards your fellow man.


Unless they are friends or family,why?
That doesn't answer my question. But to answer yours, empathy. Most of us have it.
I don't mind giving to charities, but I'm not giving away my body to people I don't even know,
And nobody is going to force you to.
and probably wouldn't have wanted to know anyway.
How could you possibly know that? Or is your whole 'let the weak die' thing so bad that you hold people who need transplants in contempt?
And no one in my family has ever need a transplant. I'm really not worries about it.
Your family's medical history won't make much of a difference if you get shot in the kidney.

Why can't it go the other way? If you don't want to donate, say so. Just like you have to specifically state that you do not want to be resuscitated, or get a blood transfusion.

To echo DM, how arbitrary.

I guess it is kinda arbitrary. But so what? So is life.


I don't think they come in checklist form though.


Heh, probably not.


Because you, evidently, are totally lacking in empathy towards your fellow man.

That doesn't answer my question. But to answer yours, empathy. Most of us have it.

I do have empathy. I feel bad when people are sick, or injured. Like I said before, I'm perfectly fine with giving to charities and the like, but I"m not going to give away pieces of myself to them. I'd be willing to donate to a family member or very close friend, though.


And nobody is going to force you to.

They basically will if I don't take any action, which is stupid.


How could you possibly know that? Or is your whole 'let the weak die' thing so bad that you hold people who need transplants in contempt?


I didn't say I was sure. I said probably, witch leaves room to be wrong.


Your family's medical history won't make much of a difference if you get shot in the kidney.

Hmm, well that's true. But I have 2, so maybe I could live without one. ;)

Unless they are friends or family,why? I don't mind giving to charities, but I'm not giving away my body to people I don't even know, and probably wouldn't have wanted to know anyway.
I, on the other hand, don't give to charity, but am glad for whoever will get whatever use out of my body once I'm done with it. They can have my DVD collection, too.
Why are people so worried about the fate of 150+ pounds of rotting meat that they won't even be around to notice being cut up and passed around the hospital?

I guess it is kinda arbitrary. But so what? So is life.
:confused:



I do have empathy. I feel bad when people are sick, or injured. Like I said before, I'm perfectly fine with giving to charities and the like, but I"m not going to give away pieces of myself to them. I'd be willing to donate to a family member or very close friend, though.
Ah, I see.


They basically will if I don't take any action, which is stupid.
How is it?



I didn't say I was sure. I said probably, witch leaves room to be wrong.
Yes it does, but you still think that you wouldn't want to know all of the thousands of people. It's still a great big assumption to think that is probable.



Hmm, well that's true. But I have 2, so maybe I could live without one. ;)
Point is that there are more reasons that one might need a transplant than genetics.

I, on the other hand, don't give to charity, but am glad for whoever will get whatever use out of my body once I'm done with it. They can have my DVD collection, too.
Why are people so worried about the fate of 150+ pounds of rotting meat that they won't even be around to notice being cut up and passed around the hospital?

Because its MY rotting meat. And I want it burned or buried, not passed around like a camp whore.

Because its MY rotting meat. And I want it burned or buried, not passed around like a camp whore.

And what's the problem with signing a form that affirms your desire to be in one piece when you're buried/cremated?

Because its MY rotting meat. And I want it burned or buried, not passed around like a camp whore.
For it to be YOUR rotting meat, you'd still have to be around to own it. Since you're dead by this point, you no longer have any right to control what happens with it.

Because its MY rotting meat. And I want it burned or buried, not passed around like a camp whore.

--Excerpt from 'Where Are They Now? NSG Edition" circa 2027-- ((fallen through a temporal anomaly))

" ...Ironically, Trollgard would be killed and eaten by the last remaining cannibalistic tribe on Earth. His final words are purported to be: 'Damn you Lunatic Goofballs! Damn You!!!' ... "

:)

Because its MY rotting meat. And I want it burned or buried, not passed around like a camp whore.
You can't own something when you're dead.

And what's the problem with signing a form that affirms your desire to be in one piece when you're buried/cremated?

I'll probably have it in my will, but I don't want to run the risk of dying in an accident and having my body desecrated. (Though, I don't live in the UK...)

For it to be YOUR rotting meat, you'd still have to be around to own it. Since you're dead by this point, you no longer have any right to control what happens with it.

It'd be my final wishes.

And it'd still be my damn corpse. And to hell with anyone who thinks corpses can be messed with without receiving permission.

You can't own something when you're dead.

Go to hell. Its my body, yesterday, today, and 1000 years from now. Though, in a 1000 years there won't be much left, and my will probably wouldn't have survived, it'd still be my body.

Go to hell. Its my body, yesterday, today, and 1000 years from now. Though, in a 1000 years there won't be much left, and my will probably wouldn't have survived, it'd still be my body.
No it won't be. When you die, you no longer own property, no matter how emotionally attached to it you were in life.

I'll probably have it in my will, but I don't want to run the risk of dying in an accident and having my body desecrated. (Though, I don't live in the UK...)
It's on you to make a will before that happens. If nobody knows your wishes they can't really be faulted for not respecting them.

It'd be my final wishes.
And why should anyone pay attention to the feeble, probably deluded, raspings of a dying man? Earlier, you referred to the Strong and the Weak, well I'd say the dead are pretty damn weak. Even someone suffering from kidney failure has the strength in him to breathe.
And it'd still be my damn corpse. And to hell with anyone who thinks corpses can be messed with without receiving permission.
What are you going to do to stop me?

What are you going to do to stop me?

Occasionally twitch. :)

Occasionally twitch. :)

Get really stiff, bloat up, release some nasty gasses as you begin to decompose, un-bloat up, continue to decompose.

What a strong, solid defense against your body being desecrated. :rolleyes:

Go to hell. Its my body, yesterday, today, and 1000 years from now. Though, in a 1000 years there won't be much left, and my will probably wouldn't have survived, it'd still be my body.

But see, the great thing is, in your little idealized paradym of the Strong and the Weak, you're nothing more than a rotting corpse. Literally, you will be weaker than the weakest living person still alive when you become wormfood. At the great thing about survival of the fittest, and the Strong vs. the Weak is that when you are nothing more than a sack of rotting meat, your property will be the property of anyone who takes it from your cold, dead hands.

Trollgaard's right. You can't presume consent - it doesn't make any sense.

You could make a rule that all people's organs are fair game unless they specifically opt-out, but calling the failure to opt-out "presumed consent" destroys the meaning of the word consent.

Trollgaard's right. You can't presume consent - it doesn't make any sense.

You could make a rule that all people's organs are fair game unless they specifically opt-out, but calling the failure to opt-out "presumed consent" destroys the meaning of the word consent.

well, based on the definition he supplied, as I noted earlier, there is such a thing as implicit consent by remaining silent when you had the chance to voice opposition.

But if you don't have a problem with the system in practice, and merely object to it linguistically, then we can phrase it differently...a "default opt-in with the ability to opt-out organ removal and transplant system"

well, based on the definition he supplied, as I noted earlier, there is such a thing as implicit consent by remaining silent when you had the chance to voice opposition.

But if you don't have a problem with the system in practice, and merely object to it linguistically, then we can phrase it differently...a "default opt-in with the ability to opt-out organ removal and transplant system"

Yeah, but that probably will have a significantly lower chance of making it through legislature. Too many words, and too many big words. We're talking about politicans, after all.

Yeah, but that probably will have a significantly lower chance of making it through legislature. Too many words, and too many big words. We're talking about politicans, after all.

How about simply "Opt-out transplant system"?

How about simply "Opt-out transplant system"?

Transplant's an awful big word for most politicians.

Transplant's an awful big word for most politicians.

LOL

Trollgaard's right. You can't presume consent - it doesn't make any sense.
It makes perfect sense, you just don't understand it.

You could make a rule that all people's organs are fair game unless they specifically opt-out, but calling the failure to opt-out "presumed consent" destroys the meaning of the word consent.

No it doesn't. As has been pointed out already, presumed consent and other such presumptions are everywhere in modern society. Yet the concept of consent survives.

Get really stiff, bloat up, release some nasty gasses as you begin to decompose, un-bloat up, continue to decompose.

What a strong, solid defense against your body being desecrated. :rolleyes:

By then, his organs will be more or less ruined. But he may still have a few autonomic twitches moments after death as his organs are harvested. I call dibs on the spleen. :)

Okay, let me rephrase.
If either presumption is equally valid, then why shouldn’t the same presumption be made across the board?
With organ donation we obviously want to ensure that individual’s organs aren’t taken without consent. We also want to ensure that everyone who wishes their organs to be donated, can. If there is a properly regulated system of determining whether each individual in the country wishes to donate, whether or not the system is presumed consent/opt out or presumed non-consent/opt in, I see no danger for individual’s rights.

But this isn’t the case across the board. Presumed consent/opt out or presumed non-consent/opt in isn’t even an option for certain legal situations; it would simply be an infeasible way of ‘operating’ certain laws, safeguarding individual’s rights from unnecessary intervention in all cases, etc.

Further than the above, I don’t see the need to construct an argument for why the same presumption shouldn’t be made across the board

Whatever. I don't even give a damn anymore, I'm just pissed.

Another reason?

Let the weak die or live on their own.

There.

Happy?

Once again, I doubt you'd be singing the Darwinian Polka if it were your sister in law in the hospital, dying by inches because she was born with deformed kidneys. Or you. Would you still be saying let the weak die if you were the one in need of a donated organ?

No it doesn't. As has been pointed out already, presumed consent and other such presumptions are everywhere in modern society. Yet the concept of consent survives.
The active nature of consent is very important; it's an integral part of sexual assault laws, for example. Rendering consent to mean simply the lack of opposition would dramatically change how those alws applied.

With organ donation we obviously want to ensure that individual’s organs aren’t taken without consent. We also want to ensure that everyone who wishes their organs to be donated, can. If there is a properly regulated system of determining whether each individual in the country wishes to donate, whether or not the system is presumed consent/opt out or presumed non-consent/opt in, I see no danger for individual’s rights.

But this isn’t the case across the board. Presumed consent/opt out or presumed non-consent/opt in isn’t even an option for certain legal situations; it would simply be an infeasible way of ‘operating’ certain laws, safeguarding individual’s rights from unnecessary intervention in all cases, etc.

Further than the above, I don’t see the need to construct an argument for why the same presumption shouldn’t be made across the boardWhat about the legal situations where presumed consent or non-consent is an option? Should presumed consent across the board be the rule in those situations?

The active nature of consent is very important; it's an integral part of sexual assault laws, for example. Rendering consent to mean simply the lack of opposition would dramatically change how those alws applied.

Those laws aren't being changed at all. This isn't changing the legal definition of consent. Besides, doctors already presume that patients consent to emergency medical treatment. That's been true for years.

Hey, I know this is completely different and somewhat stupid, but I want to say it before the Troll does:

What about rape? Unless the raped person(s) say no it counts as rape as consent has not been given. Not saying "no; stop!' does not negate the fact that it is rape. Should the rapist be allowed to do whatever they want as long as the raped person(s) haven't told them ahead of time that they would prefer to be raped?

To most of you: Now rip that piece of crap to shreds.

To Troll: You can probably find a use for that; I mean it kinda makes sense for a bit or two.

The active nature of consent is very important; it's an integral part of sexual assault laws, for example. Rendering consent to mean simply the lack of opposition would dramatically change how those alws applied.

Aww they kinda beat me too it. :(

What about the legal situations where presumed consent or non-consent is an option? Should presumed consent across the board be the rule in those situations?
I don’t see why it necessarily should.

If I’ve given the impression that presumed consent is somehow ‘better’ than presumed non-consent, then I apologise. If a properly regulated system is in place (and I realise that’s a big ‘if’...) then, from an ethical point of view, I don’t see any difference between the two.

Hey, I know this is completely different and somewhat stupid, but I want to say it before the Troll does:

What about rape? Unless the raped person(s) say no it counts as rape as consent has not been given. Not saying "no; stop!' does not negate the fact that it is rape. Should the rapist be allowed to do whatever they want as long as the raped person(s) haven't told them ahead of time that they would prefer to be raped?

To most of you: Now rip that piece of crap to shreds.

To Troll: You can probably find a use for that; I mean it kinda makes sense for a bit or two.

Ooooooooooh!

Good point! I never even thought of this!

Wutcha got to say to this one, presumed consent fans?

Once again, I doubt you'd be singing the Darwinian Polka if it were your sister in law in the hospital, dying by inches because she was born with deformed kidneys. Or you. Would you still be saying let the weak die if you were the one in need of a donated organ?

And you know this how? I'd be sad if someone I knew needed a transplant, and I'd be sad and angry if they died, and I don't wish this on anyone. But, if they happened to die, I'd eventually move on, but I'd always remember and cherish that person.

IF it was genetic, I'd be angry, scared, and probably wouldn't want a transplant. I'd do something crazy before I keeled over, though.

If I needed a transplant because of some freak accident, I dunno. Probably still wouldn't take a transplant, though I'd be more likely to than if I needed one for a genetic reason.

Hey, I know this is completely different and somewhat stupid, but I want to say it before the Troll does:

What about rape? Unless the raped person(s) say no it counts as rape as consent has not been given. Not saying "no; stop!' does not negate the fact that it is rape. Should the rapist be allowed to do whatever they want as long as the raped person(s) haven't told them ahead of time that they would prefer to be raped?

Actually, you're wrong. In very few states is rape a strict liability crime. In most, the mens rea is either knowledge (you knew she didn't consent), recklesness (you were aware of the risk that she did not consent and did it anyway) or negligence (a reasonable person would have done differently). If you were reasonably unaware that she did not consent, and she made no affirmative steps to stop you, then in most jurisdictions, that's not rape.

So "she was not threatened, she did not resist, and did not say no" is, in many states, a perfectly valid defense to rape.

Ooooooooooh!

Good point! I never even thought of this!

Wutcha got to say to this one, presumed consent fans?

that it's just about as shitty an argument as the one you have been making, for the reasons defined above.

that it's just about as shitty an argument as the one you have been making, for the reasons defined above.

Oh yes, I'm the one making shitty arguments that say its ok if other people decisions for you.

I'm the one saying consent doesn't have to be given in order for it to count as consent.

Yeah, those are shitty arguments. But wait, they're yours!

I'm the one saying consent doesn't have to be given in order for it to count as consent.

Well, considering you gave the definition of consent as something that can be given through acquiescence, and acquiescence means to give implicit approval through lack of argument...yes, that is exactly what you said.

Oops, did you forget your own argument again? You seem to be having that problem a lot. May I suggest seeing a doctor for that memory loss of yours?

And you know this how? I'd be sad if someone I knew needed a transplant, and I'd be sad and angry if they died, and I don't wish this on anyone. But, if they happened to die, I'd eventually move on, but I'd always remember and cherish that person.

I didn't say I know anything. I said I doubted something. There's a pretty major difference. An I'm glad to know your feelings, because you seemed to be making a particularly heartless argument.

By then, his organs will be more or less ruined. But he may still have a few autonomic twitches moments after death as his organs are harvested. I call dibs on the spleen. :)

You can have it. I'm trying to figure out if I can put his kidneys in some sort of long-term storage.

You know, just in case.

I don’t see why it necessarily should.

If I’ve given the impression that presumed consent is somehow ‘better’ than presumed non-consent, then I apologise. If a properly regulated system is in place (and I realise that’s a big ‘if’...) then, from an ethical point of view, I don’t see any difference between the two.You didn't say that presumed consent was better, but you seemed to indicate that it was interchangeable with non-consent (by saying you didn't see the difference between the two).

What are you going to do to stop me?

The Cabin Boy, the Cabin Boy ...
the dirty little nipper
He lined his ass with broken glass
and circumcised the skipper :p

Ooooooooooh!
Good point! I never even thought of this!
Wutcha got to say to this one, presumed consent fans?

In a "presumed consent" rape case the rapist assumes the woman consents to be raped for his pleasure.

In a "presumed consent" organ donation case the government assumes that the deceased consents to save other persons.

I see a tiny difference here ;)

Another angle:
If you die without a will, the government will assume you want your possessions to go to your next of kin. If you do not want that you should make a will.
Is that presumption also wrong ?

I however still prefer forcing people to actually make the decision instead of leaving it until it is too late.

:p

Haha, Frigging in the Rigging.

Haha, Frigging in the Rigging.

The Captain had a daughter
Who fell in deep sea water
And by her squeals we knew the eels
Had found 'er sexual quarters
Wow, there's a lot more to that than i thought! :)
*bows*

Now I feel guilty. There are people needing hearts and livers and I'm selfishly guarding mine, like I made a contribution that's better than helping several people survive. I didn't even give blood yet. :( Why must I feel so guilty? Why must everything make Hoyteca feel sad today?

Now I feel guilty. There are people needing hearts and livers and I'm selfishly guarding mine, like I made a contribution that's better than helping several people survive. I didn't even give blood yet. :( Why must I feel so guilty? Why must everything make Hoyteca feel sad today?

You can make up for it by tearing your hair out in meaty clumps, ripping your nails out, and scraping off a few thin layers of dermis all into a few sandwich bags and dropping them off with a few dixie cups of blood, mucous and sperm at your local clinic, labeled "for the good of humanity".
You can use your name or Ruffy's ... they know about him.
*nods emphatically*

That still wouldn't fill the void caused by my knowing that my selfishness and inaction killed people. Why must people need the organs I need to live? Why must my survival conflict with other peoples'? Why didn't I take your advice.Trust me ... if you DID take my advice, Ruffy would be more than happy to "fill the void".

As for the issue, it boils down to what rights, if any, the dead have and what say the next of kin should have. If the state wanted to, it could probably take everything the deceased owned after the deceased died if no offical will was made out. After all, who are they stealing from? Moldy rotting six feet under?It is somewhat disturbing. Isn't that why you should have a wake where your stuff is burned to a crisp while everyone dances around chanting like they do for Shamu at Sea World?

You can make up for it by tearing your hair out in meaty clumps, ripping your nails out, and scraping off a few thin layers of dermis all into a few sandwich bags and dropping them off with a few dixie cups of blood, mucous and sperm at your local clinic, labeled "for the good of humanity".
You can use your name or Ruffy's ... they know about him.
*nods emphatically*

That still wouldn't fill the void caused by my knowing that my selfishness and inaction killed people. Why must people need the organs I need to live? Why must my survival conflict with other peoples'? Why didn't I take your advice.

As for the issue, it boils down to what rights, if any, the dead have and what say the next of kin should have. If the state wanted to, it could probably take everything the deceased owned after the deceased died if no offical will was made out. After all, who are they stealing from? Moldy rotting six feet under?

That still wouldn't fill the void caused by my knowing that my selfishness and inaction killed people. Why must people need the organs I need to live? Why must my survival conflict with other peoples'? Why didn't I take your advice.

Oh, we can take that much further. Your standard of living probably requires a few dozens times as much energy as that of a starving African. Meaning that by killing you and reallocating that energy we could in principle let a few more Africans live on.
Is you life worth more than the lifes of say... 10 Africans ?

Or, any time you buy something out of luxury instead of direct need you are not donating that "spare" money to UNICEF. Was that nifty watch really more important than the education and healthcare of 30 little children ?

Oh, we can take that much further. Your standard of living probably requires a few dozens times as much energy as that of a starving African. Meaning that by killing you and reallocating that energy we could in principle let a few more Africans live on.
Is you life worth more than the lifes of say... 10 Africans ?

Or, any time you buy something out of luxury instead of direct need you are not donating that "spare" money to UNICEF. Was that nifty watch really more important than the education and healthcare of 30 little children ?

Does Hoyteca really need this guilt? Hoyteca must have really pissed karma off.

Does Hoyteca really need this guilt? Hoyteca must have really pissed karma off.

Hoyteca just needs to learn that life must have meaning to be worth living ;)

My mother in-law exploded at this over the weekend; phrases such as 'the fuckin' cheek of it' flew around the kitchen. I just shrugged and suggested that she opt out then.

Apparently that's too hard for people for people to do, go figure!:rolleyes:

Someone was talking about wills the other day. People mentioned how the dead do not have any rights - a will is the last act of the living, not the first of the dead as it were. This got wondering why the government has to pass legislation about presumed consent. Couldn't they just be really harsh and say "Where in this person's will did it say they were passing on their organs to you?" or "Just collecting the inheritance tax due to us.".

My mother in-law exploded at this over the weekend; phrases such as 'the fuckin' cheek of it' flew around the kitchen. I just shrugged and suggested that she opt out then.

Apparently that's too hard for people for people to do, go figure!:rolleyes:

But of course. An opt-out system requires people to actively state that they do not care enough for other humans to save them with organs they themselves no longer need.

An opt-in system does not. Not opting in just means you did not wish to think about your own death, had other things to do and so on.

Opt-out makes people feel guilty or at least embarrassed. That is why so many are against it.

But of course. An opt-out system requires people to actively state that they do not care enough for other humans to save them with organs they themselves no longer need.

An opt-in system does not. Not opting in just means you did not wish to think about your own death, had other things to do and so on.

Opt-out makes people feel guilty or at least embarrassed. That is why so many are against it.


Exactly. And so the anger I guess.

Someone was talking about wills the other day. People mentioned how the dead do not have any rights - a will is the last act of the living, not the first of the dead as it were. This got wondering why the government has to pass legislation about presumed consent. Couldn't they just be really harsh and say "Where in this person's will did it say they were passing on their organs to you?" or "Just collecting the inheritance tax due to us.".They could, but even in cases where there aren't wills, there is still a process for determining who gets the belongings of the deceased - they don't go to the government.
I'm also fairly sure that inheritance tax isn't deducted directly from the estate.