Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

No More GIFT of Life??


Chicopee John

Recommended Posts

4/29/10: Proposal: All New Yorkers Become Organ Donors

Assemblyman Brodsky Introduces Bill That Would Give State The Right To Decide If You Are To Give The Gift Of Life

If Passed In Albany, Law Would Be First Of Its Kind In The United States

 

 

Apparently this topic has been 'brainstormed' in the medical/ethical world for some time.

 

Clearly, many unfortunate people die each year for lack of a compatible organ/donor. If the above-referenced Bill does become law, many more organs will be available for needy recipients.

 

However, this sounds a bit creepy to me. The Government making this very personal decision for me - I happen to be a registered donor but not everybody feels the way I do. I wouldn't be surprised if this would conflict with a number of religious beliefs. I carpool with a Hindu woman and will address this with her on the way home today.

 

This is one way to keep healthcare costs down.

 

Obamacare????

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have a source? I've caught wind of donation becoming an "opt-out" instead of "opt-in" type of decision, where, by default, you're an organ donor unless you say you don't want to be. Is that what this is?

 

I don't know where this particular piece came from. It actually was posted on a Yahoo Finance Message Board.

 

If you search "manditory organ donation' in your favorite search engine, you will see a variety of discussions, etc. This is how I actually became aware of this ongoing debate. Maybe I forgot about it. More likely, I've been asleep at the switch.

 

I always like to opt in, rather than opt out of anything.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill would simply switch the default position - instead of having to opt in if you're willing to donate your organs, they'd assume you're willing unless you've opted out. So the government is not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to. It'd be like saying that right now the government forces you to NOT donate your organs. But they don't. They give you the choice to donate them.

 

Since it's a bill introduced by a New York assemblyman, I don't know what it has to do with national health care reform.

 

It's not even a new idea. This is how it's done in lots of other countries.

 

Now, cue the crazies and their Nazi comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that like charging a new car purchase which is optional, to "we are going to charge everybody

 

the price of a new car on their credit card, unless they opt out" ???

 

 

Or, "our new Obamaocare program is to let old people just die in hospitals, unless

 

they "opt out" of the program?

 

Sounds very inappropriate to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bill would simply switch the default position - instead of having to opt in if you're willing to donate your organs, they'd assume you're willing unless you've opted out. So the government is not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to. It'd be like saying that right now the government forces you to NOT donate your organs. But they don't. They give you the choice to donate them.

 

Since it's a bill introduced by a New York assemblyman, I don't know what it has to do with national health care reform.

 

It's not even a new idea. This is how it's done in lots of other countries.

 

Now, cue the crazies and their Nazi comparisons.

 

Thanks for the clarification, Vape and Heck.

 

I still have a problem with any type of 'Opt Out'. I have no problem with "Opt In" for just about anything. Seems like we have a good system now. I wish more people would become donors but that is their right to become one.

 

The santity of a human body trumps anybody's 'right' to do something else with it.

 

 

Heck, let's say you are "Opted In" to something you are against - even strongly against. Is that OK as long as you can opt out?

 

What if you don't know about it or understand it?

 

Creepy stuff.

 

If Women have the 'right' to control their own bodies, why not extend that right to all manhood?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heck, let's say you are "Opted In" to something you are against - even strongly against. Is that OK as long as you can opt out?

 

What if you don't know about it or understand it?

 

Creepy stuff.

 

If Women have the 'right' to control their own bodies, why not extend that right to all manhood?

 

There are certainly limits to the types of things you want the government to make mandatory. And there are other ways to encourage organ donation, mostly with public service campaigns. But that costs money states don't have.

 

Right now, the system isn't really working all that well. There are far too few donors vs. people who need organ transplants. This assemblyman has been through this, and this is why he's trying to change the law.

 

Vaccines would be a good example. This is something that the government wants to see done to every child to provide a collective immunity to certain diseases, and eventually eradicate them. But some parents think vaccines are unsafe and have risky side effects (they're mostly misinformed, in my view) and are opting out in larger and larger numbers.

 

If the default position would be for organ donation instead of not, I'm not sure that rises to the level of something that creeps me out. But many people have different views about what happens when you die, or what they want to have happen to their bodies, and that's why we vote on it.

 

My sister-in-law actually does this for a living - approaches families who have lost someone about organ donation. It's a real tough job, but she finds that often that's the only bright side for some of these people. The death of their loved one is going to help someone else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My sister-in-law actually does this for a living - approaches families who have lost someone about organ donation. It's a real tough job, but she finds that often that's the only bright side for some of these people. The death of their loved one is going to help someone else.

 

God Bless her, Heck - assuming this doesn't offend you :rolleyes:

 

I, too, wish more people would register as organ donors. I've known people on both sides of the equation. I agree - even in the most horrifying circumstances - people who've lost loved ones and can help others have hope find some gratitude (maybe the wrong word).

 

But, that isn't the root issue. The root issue is whether the government has the right to enforce 'opt out' on people. Maybe this will be the case, but I hope anybody getting a new drivers license or renewing an old one is clearly told he becomes a donor unless he choose not to. Even that - to me - seems to put the person in an akward position if he.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God Bless her, Heck - assuming this doesn't offend you :rolleyes:

 

I, too, wish more people would register as organ donors. I've known people on both sides of the equation. I agree - even in the most horrifying circumstances - people who've lost loved ones and can help others have hope find some gratitude (maybe the wrong word).

 

But, that isn't the root issue. The root issue is whether the government has the right to enforce 'opt out' on people. Maybe this will be the case, but I hope anybody getting a new drivers license or renewing an old one is clearly told he becomes a donor unless he choose not to. Even that - to me - seems to put the person in an akward position if he.

 

 

I would imagine that the workers will be required to say, "You will be an organ donor unless you choose to opt out. Do you want to opt out?" or something along those lines, whereas now, they're required to ask "Do you want to be an organ donor?" It's an awkward question either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the default position would be for organ donation instead of not, I'm not sure that rises to the level of something that creeps me out. But many people have different views about what happens when you die, or what they want to have happen to their bodies, and that's why we vote on it.

 

So when does someone's body become the property of th federal government? I can see all kinds of legal issues with such a mandate.

 

Like I have noted before there are many progressives who do not believe in God or any religion and do not respect how this country was made great. Why did the early settlers move to the free world? and what is protected in the Constitution?

 

Its time for progressives to go back to reading the laws of the land and respecting the rights of all citizens who live here.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This country wasn't made great because of religion, this country is great because of the separation of church and state. People came here, initially, to practice their religion, yes, but more importantly to escape the religious vise grip that the oppressive Anglican Church exacted over them.

 

Here, Neil deGrasse Tyson is much more eloquent than I am.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So when does someone's body become the property of th federal government? I can see all kinds of legal issues with such a mandate.

 

Like I have noted before there are many progressives who do not believe in God or any religion and do not respect how this country was made great. Why did the early settlers move to the free world? and what is protected in the Constitution?

 

Its time for progressives to go back to reading the laws of the land and respecting the rights of all citizens who live here.

 

Except Latinos in Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CITIZENS. That means everybody who IS A CITIZEN.

 

ILLEGALS ARE NOT CITIZENS. So, they have NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS,

 

because CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS apply to CITIZENS.

 

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE COLOR OF THE CITIZENS' SKIN.

 

geez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if you really believe that, would you explain the reasoning behind the American truck driver that got detained recently? He got detained because he spoke poor English and looked like a fence-hopper? That's the gist I'm getting from it. Guy presented his ID and SSN, they needed his birth certificate. Do I need to carry my birth certificate on person if I decide to ever visit Arizona (which I'm NOT going to do until this law is repealed. Until then, f*ck that place and f*ck their economy, they'll see none of my tourism money, and I've eliminated ASU from my list of possible medical schools. I'm not the only one boycotting this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest problem is, the guy spoke very poor English.

 

And, the ID's can be faked, you know.

 

I say, if somebody has become an American citizen, they know

 

more English than that. Can you imagine becoming a Mexican

 

citizen and not knowing any Spanish?

 

Becoming a Russian citizen and not knowing any Russian?

 

ARIZONA LAW SIMPLE MANDATES THE STATE TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW.

 

That's all. Both FORBID racial profiling.

 

you want to boycott the entire United States now?

 

Come on. It's easy to create a political setup video for propaganda use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That'd be a problem if the United States declared English as the national language. Have you ever been to Miami? Here's another case of racial profiling done against me. I have dark skin, y hablaron en español primero.

 

We don't have a national language, therefore your ability or inability to speak proper English shouldn't be a factor. If you spent a year learning Spanish before coming to the country, but moved there with your family, and spoke English at home, do you think your Spanish would be any better than this guy's English? He could iterate what he felt and what he wanted to say, was it proper English, hell no, but what do you expect? You really think you'd be speaking fluent, un-accented Spanish if you studied it for a few years, and moved there? No. You have to learn it at a young age, if you don't, you'll have an accent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think we should have adopted my idea years ago.

 

Just put up a stun laser where they cross, and every time they

 

try to get into our country illegally, they get stunned unconcious at the border. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have any idea how much that would cost? Light would be a bad way to go, IMO, to do nonlethal/non-permanent damage to a human, you'd want to aim for their eyes with power on the order of milliwatts, but that probably wouldn't be very effective. If you want to do real damage, then you get something with the power of 40 watts, this can burn skin. Unfortunately, a single laser of that much power, that can detect humans, and be programmed to not kill them would be a couple thousand if not a couple hundred thousand dollars.

 

Sound would be a better way to go, but it would have to differentiate from the wildlife. And none of this addresses the issue of tunnelers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...