The Glade 4.0

Nor am I... leaves too much capability for future decisions to not allow people to opt out.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Maybe the PETA nudie chicks could take some off showering on LA streets and instead try to get more folks to help... those... ah.. what-do-you-call'ems? Oh yes, fellow human beings. I bet they'd help if part of being an organ donor meant your mortal remains (sans donated organs) were ground up into hot dogs instead of one pig/cow/turkey/buck of worms.

_________________

An opt-out system doesn't make you obligated. It just changes what the default is. I'm baffled at what kind of morality is required to think that's it's preferable to have thousands of people die rather than have the few individuals that really don't want to donate their organs have to spend ten minutes filling out a form.

I don't have an issue with the actual concept of selling an organ, what I have an issue with is when someone refuses to donate an organ to save someone's life even though he gets no benefit from not doing so. If you die and the only people who are matches do not have any money, you have to be some kind of utter ******* to stick to your $250,000 price (or whatever) and essentially direct that your heart be thrown away rather than given to them.



How exactly does changing to opt out make it easier to change the law later to not allow opting out? This seems like a perfect example of the slippery slope fallacy.

I don't think it changes the capability of any future decisions. There's no evidence to suggest that an auto-opt in is going to degrade into no opting out.

Why not just add in 'mandatory organ donation' as part of 'mandatory health care' ?

It solves all sorts of problems (except my rights as an individual, and obviously no one gives a **** about that).

"For the 'Greater Good' and all that"....

I disagree with Xeq on this issue, but for the sake of argument, I'd be curious to hear why everyone else is so all-fired sure that people should continue to have property rights (or any other rights for that matter) in their bodies, worldly possessions, etc. after they become, you know, topsoil-in-the-making.

Oh, I see. Freedom of Religions deemed suitably modern and progressive enough, and **** you if your religion doesn't make the cut because it's too superstitious?

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

The key word there is "think", and you're not doing it, you're "feeling". Totally different. If you CAN reach down deep and really think about it, consider that people want the default condition for their organ donation to be voluntary, not compulsory.

Forcing someone to opt out of if they don't want to make a voluntary donation is an oxymoron.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

I think it's a natural and healthy progression of human society where everyone takes their turn. Christians had eight years of oppressing everybody else with the Bush administration, and now they can sit in the back of the bus. Don't worry. In 2020 or 2024, I'm sure they'll weasel enough seats in Washington D.C. to start their theocracy back up again.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I don't have any rights, my medical designate does (unless I've left specific instructions otherwise, like sign a donor card).

It's the right of that same person that has the right to make the medical decision about my care if I'm not able. I don't see that death should change anything there.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

There were over 80,000 people on the waiting list for kidneys in 2009, 13,000 got single kidney transplants.Every year 3,000 people die waiting for a kidney. Other countries that have paid for kidney donations cleared their backlog. That's many, many to me, right there.


I really cringe at people dying when they didn't have to, because there was no heart available at any price.



Yet, you still "really cringe at the idea of a heart going to the highest bidder"? Doesn't seem consistent.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

But I'm not convinced that allowing people to sell their organs will increase the number of organs available to a significant degree.



See above.



Hence the "still".

I guess if success elsewhere doesn't convince you, there's no point in trying.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Let's see, you said:



That is hardly convincing. You have not disclosed which countries, when this was done, what their backlog was, what the increase in available organs was after they changed their policy, what the policy was changed to, what it was changed from, or really any data that could be used to convince anyone.

Now I'm not saying you need to provide all this data, I'm just saying with the complete lack of it, I'm unconvinced.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I look at it this way: if I could sell some of my redundant organs, some people would get them now and be able to live and my family could sell the rest if I died(assuming they were still viable). As it stands right now, no one is getting anything from me and they won't as long as organs aren't legal to sell.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

Your job, not mine. I'm not interested in researching YOUR statements for you. I'm too busy researching my statements (if I care enough to try to convince someone).

Like I said, you don't need to bother, but a) don't expect an unreferenced statement to convince anyone, and b) don't expect others to do your work for you.

You really think there would be a big number of people selling their organs whilst still alive? There's no F-ing way I would sell a kidney or anything else for that matter.

Maybe a tooth.

If your organs kept getting transplanted from host to host, you could technically become immortal.

Study: In Iran apparently the answer is yes when incentivized by money.

Oh, I did my research. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. Remain ignorant, I'm sure you'll remain unconvinced that way.



That requires reading; apparently that's too much effort.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

I'd sell a kidney in a heartbeat. And a lung if the price was right. Part of my liver, too.

_________________
Los Angeles Kings 2014 Stanley Cup Champions

"I love this **** team right here."
-Jonathan Quick

I saw no links other than a smart-ass Google search. I'm not sifting through it for you. If you have a link, to some back up for your statement, provide it. I'm not going to do your work for you, because you're too lazy to make an effort.



So is backing up your statements, apparently.

Wow, that is crazy to me. That's just nuts.