NY lawmaker to force New Yorkers to become organ donors?
posted at 9:30 pm on April 29, 2010 by Cassy Fiano
I received several tips about this in my inbox. I didn’t believe it could be as bad as it sounded, but yes, of course it is. A New York state assemblyman wants to end the long waiting lists for organ donations in New York by forcibly enrolling all New Yorkers as donors… unless they opt out.
Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.
But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.
New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.
“We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system,” Brodsky said.
To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.
“Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy,” Brodsky said.
Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.
Not many people would argue that being an organ donor is necessarily a bad thing. That doesn’t mean that any of those people should be forcibly made an organ donor. Yes, this law apparently will let people opt out. But are all New Yorkers going to be notified first? Will they have a fair chance to opt out, or is this going to be done quietly, so that as few people as possible notice that it’s happened? And what happens if too many people opt out? Will they remove the ability to opt out?
This is just a horrible idea all around. There’s too many questions, and it seems like too much of a slippery slope. While I can understand Mr. Brodsky’s reasons for wanting to do this, it still is wrong. The state does not own our bodies. They belong to us. (I know, it seems like an obvious concept, but look who’s governing our country right now. Apparently it’s not all that obvious.) And if someone doesn’t want to be an organ donor — either for religious reasons, for personal reasons, or because they just don’t want to for no reason at all — then that is their right.
And there’s more to worry about with this bill. Just a few days ago, Peter Orszag confirmed that Obamacare would impose rationing. Sarah Palin’s warnings about the so-called death panels were true. How long will it take for these death panels to make decisions based on the waiting lists for organ donations? Let’s say you’re fighting cancer. It’s advanced, but there’s still a chance you could beat it with aggressive but expensive treatment. Now, be honest. Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility that your treatment would be denied so that your organs could be harvested?
I know, it sounds far-fetched. And this forced organ donation is only taking place in New York… for right now, anyways. What if Democrats in Congress think that this is just a great idea? Would you really put it past them? I know I wouldn’t. If they did, the aforementioned scenario is not that unbelievable. Slippery slopes exist, my friends. It may start off as a well-intentioned state program in New York, but who says that’s where it will end?
Richard Brodsky is currently running for New York Attorney General. He is a typical liberal Democrat who thinks that everything belongs to the government — apparently even your body. Politicians who think this way are dangerous, and hopefully, Richard Brodsky will find himself without a job come November.
Cross-posted from Cassy’s blog. Stop by for more original commentary, or follow her on Twitter!
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Granted it’s a huge ethical dilemna. However,
safeguards can be put in place such as a 1 year probation before receiving payment or that donors need to be on firm financial ground. However, ask the person looking for a an organ and may face death if one isn’t found soon if they think it would be a good idea.
veni vidi vici on April 29, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Gee, what other conspiracy theories do you have?
Of course I was being facetious you dim-witted twit. But. as with any satire, there is a degree of truth. Under Obamacare there will definitely be a pecking order of favorites and these favorites will be The One and The One’s admirers.
MaiDee on April 29, 2010 at 11:48 PM
Baloney. The ambulance transport team was standing right there by us in the hallway with the gurney when the ER nurse in charge was handing us the donation consent forms. The EMT’s had just dropped our son off in the ER and were waiting to for dispatch to tell them where they were supposed to go next. They also were standing there when the neurosurgeon came in and said if they were able to get the boy’s heart to keep beating, it would be days or years to know how much brain damage was done. The implication was clear. We would save everyone a lot of time and trouble, if we let him go. We were warned if we waited too long, the organs would be useless. We wanted to see him first, and the doctor from the first hospital had told us to make sure they at least did an EEG.
Sure EMT’s were not in on any decisions. But I am sure they have seen plenty made.
Lily on April 29, 2010 at 11:58 PM
This is why I only get my organs from my clones.
AaronGuzman on April 30, 2010 at 3:46 AM
Exactly, Sharke.
davidk on April 30, 2010 at 5:20 AM
But not until you get your clones from your organs.
davidk on April 30, 2010 at 5:21 AM
Satire needs improvement.
katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 5:47 AM
I support the free market trafficking of organs, just like Walter Williams.
Tim Burton on April 30, 2010 at 6:16 AM
What better way to drive DOWN something you want to promote than FORCING people to do something…and I suppose Mr Brodsky has never heard of some folks religious belief`s that would prohibit such actions. Typical heavy handed secular statist thinking.
NY Conservative on April 30, 2010 at 6:27 AM
It’s a sure fire way to make me, for one, opt OUT.
Who the hell do these people think they are?
petefrt on April 30, 2010 at 7:13 AM
The system works as it is. This proposal is the type of effort that truly turns people off of politicians. Want more participation?
Then, invest in selling it to people, for heaven’s sakes. Don’t pull a trick on people.
AnninCA on April 30, 2010 at 7:32 AM
Next they will come out with a New York lottery where you can win a free trip to The Island
BDU-33 on April 30, 2010 at 7:42 AM
Several comments here mention “dead” or “deceased” donors. However, organ donors are still alive. “Dead” organ donors, before “harvesting,” are on ventilators — although ventilators do nothing for true corpses. And organ donors are routinely given pain medication — why, if they’re dead?
Nothing involved in organ harvesting is for the donor’s benefit, but for the benefit of others. That goes against centuries of medical ethics and care.
Please go to http://www.nejm.org and read “The Dead Donor Rule and Organ Transplantation,” by Robert D. Truog, M.D. and Franklin G. Miller, Ph.D. It was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on August 14, 2008.
Those physicians, who actually are pro-transplantion (and promote “valid informed consent”), admit that “there have been persistent questions about whether patients with massive brain injury, apnea, and loss of brain-stem reflexes are really dead…The arguments about why these patients should be considered dead have never been fully convincing…evidence shows that if these patients are supported beyond the acute phase of their illness (which is rarely done), they can survive for many years…
“At worst, this on-going reliance [on the dead donor rule] suggests that the medical profession has been gerrymandering the definition of death to carefully conform with conditions that are most favorable for transplantation. At best, the rule has provided misleading ethical cover that cannot withstand careful scrutiny…
“Many will object that transplantation surgeons cannot legally or ethically remove vital organs from patients before death, since doing so will cause their death. However, if the critiques of the current methods of diagnosing death are correct, then such actions are already taking place on a routine basis…”
KyMouse on April 30, 2010 at 7:50 AM
Cassy, I’m with you. I wrote about this idea in a Green Room post a while back in relation to Cass Sunstein’s proposal in Nudge. (The GR post is truncated right now for some reason connected to the site makeover I guess, but you can see it here, too, if you’re interested.)
From my post: What gives one entity — especially the government — the right to nudge an individual, through default options built into regulations and laws, toward a particular course of action? Who are they to make a judgment on our credit cards, our snacks, or our kidneys? The whole “nudge” concept presupposes that one group knows what’s best for the rest of us. It’s elitist to the core. And statist.
Pundette on April 30, 2010 at 8:08 AM
If we’re going to presume people are organ donors unless they opt out, there needs to be a reward for not opting out. Donated organs should be allocated first to those who haven’t opted out. People who opt out of organ donation should go to the back of the transplant waiting list. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
Americans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don’t have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at http://www.lifesharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
According to a new survey by Donate Life America 43 percent of people are undecided, reluctant or do not wish to have their organs and tissue donated after their deaths. Is this because Americans don’t know there is an organ shortage? No. The survey also reports that 78 percent realize there are more people who need organ transplants in the U.S. than the number of donated organs available.
Just about every single one of the 43% of Americans who aren’t willing to register as organ donors would accept an organ transplant if they needed one to live. As long as we let non-donors jump to the front of the waiting list when they need transplants we’ll always have an organ shortage.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers
daveundis on April 30, 2010 at 8:30 AM
How is it that “non-donors jump to the front of the line?” If that were true, no one would want to be a donor. “Oh you’re not a donor? Well come right to the front, sir.”
Akzed on April 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM
An individual legislator’s daughter had trouble finding an organ donor, so his response is to coerce the entire population into organ donation. It’s a variation of tough cases making bad laws.
Some of these people seem to think “this is really cool, I can make laws” and try to address their personal crusades and wild hairs, regardless of the wisdom of legislative action. “Rep. Alan Grayson was standing in the middle of Disney World when it hit him: What Americans really need is a week of paid vacation.”
obladioblada on April 30, 2010 at 8:50 AM
Terry Schiavo
Logan’s Run
Soylent Green
It’s all making sense now.
fossten on April 30, 2010 at 8:57 AM
-The default is eiher opt in or opt out. I’m fine with the opt out.
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 9:07 AM
The American Life League (www.all.org) recommends thinking about the following questions:
If “brain dead” people are really dead, why do they often receive intravenous fluids, antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life-support measures?
Why do “brain dead” organ donors often receive anesthesia and other drugs to stop natural physical responses when their vital organs are being taken?
How can “brain dead” patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they’re really dead?
If “brain dead” is really “dead”, how can a “brain dead” pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?
Why does a ventilator work on a “brain dead” person, but not on a corpse?
For Jews and Christians, vital-organ transplantation brings up questions about the commandment that prohibits coveting anything that belongs to our neighbors (Exodus 20:17). What belongs to my neighbor more than his/her internal organs, except perhaps his/her soul? It’s one thing to need a blood transfusion — I’m an 11-gallon blood donor — or even one kidney, because those donations won’t kill the donor.
But needing a heart, liver or lungs, etc. is different, because they will require the death of the donor. We say that we are “waiting for a heart to become available,” but what we mean is that we are waiting for, and hoping for, someone else to die so that we, or someone we love, may live.
Only once have I heard someone admit that. On a TV news report, a mother was talking about her young daughter, who needed a vital-organ transplant. She admitted, “I know that I’m hoping for someone else’s child to die.”
Someone in this thread asked how readers would feel if they or someone they loved needed a vital-organ transplant. I’d feel terrible. But hoping for someone I don’t know to die, in order that someone I know and love might live, wouldn’t make cutting the vital organs out of a helpless patient morally right.
KyMouse on April 30, 2010 at 9:11 AM
Unfortunately, when a Greenroom post is promoted, they recreate it and close the old comments. What I said in the comments in the old thread, and it still stands, is everyone up in arms about being “forced” to be a donor. There’s nothing there that threatens force, no draconian penalties, no show of power. No one would be forced to sign up, they’d be signed up by default.
I do agree, however, that this is totally the wrong way to go about it and the bill should be struck down. Signing people up without authorization is a breach of ethics even if it’s for a good cause.
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 9:16 AM
That’s right Toots I’m a soulless twit for asserting the ownership of my own body.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 9:19 AM
The American Life League (www.all.org) recommends thinking about the following questions:
If “brain dead” people are really dead, why do they often receive intravenous fluids, antibiotics, ventilator care, and other life-support measures?
Why do “brain dead” organ donors often receive anesthesia and other drugs to stop natural physical responses when their vital organs are being taken?
How can “brain dead” patients have normal body functions, including vital signs, if they’re really dead?
If “brain dead” is really “dead”, how can a “brain dead” pregnant mother deliver a normal, healthy infant?
Why does a ventilator work on a “brain dead” person, but not on a corpse?
–You can deliver a baby if you’re brain dead. All it takes is machines to keep the physical body pumping. And doesn’t rigor mortis set in after a time, so wouldn’t that be the reason a vent wouldn’t work on a corpse?
–Maybe Julie Brown should have all American Life League members sign a document irrevocably refusing to accept any organ donations and directing their next of kin not to do so on their behalf.
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 9:27 AM
–that’s okay, Sharke. You’re free to be a selfish b*stard.
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Sounds like government redistribution of health. Can the Monty Python collection team be far behind?
freemarketer on April 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM
Why aren’t you just special!
katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 9:28 AM
I think you bring up interesting points, but I don’t agree with them necessarily.
When someone, like myself, signs up of their own volition to be an organ donor, I say that they can take my organs out under the circumstances described. There’s really nothing dramatic there.
Morals have nothing to do with it. I granted that permission while sober and well and it was done of my own volition (which is why Brodsky’s idea is so wrong, he removes that aspect). I’m not sure why it’s so outrageous you hope a heart becomes available so say, your young wife can live, when that means someone that agreed to become a donor passes on. Those people are not dying because you want the heart or you hoped a loved on lived, so placing this guilt on people receiving donated organs is pretty far out of line.
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 9:30 AM
Next step: Government harvesting of organs while you’re still breathing.
Look, I’m an organ donor and happy to be one; however, an individual’s dead body is not the property of the state; it is the property of the family. This proposal is an abomination. If my loved one dies, I’m supposed to sit back as the government rips their organs out because the individual neglected to make a choice one way or the other as to organ donation? Are you phucking kidding me?
D2Boston on April 30, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Nothing special, just an individual whose personal choices have nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 9:44 AM
–There’s nothing wrong with Brodsky’s idea. You can still voluntarily agree not to become an organ donor when you’re sober and well.
Based on another post, it looks like a majority of the people in the US are willing to be an organ donor, so why shouldn’t that be the default option?
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 9:48 AM
All your innerd belong to us!
Momma needs a new pair of shoes!Nanny wants a new pair of kidneys!profitsbeard on April 30, 2010 at 9:51 AM
That’s right, I am. But note how I never once said that I wouldn’t donate my own organs voluntarily or that other’s shouldn’t. In fact I will quite happily donate my entire body to medical science upon my death. But that decision is mine, not yours or anyone elses. Statist liberal prats like yourself don’t understand or care about first principles, individual rights nor the implication their abrogation has for society. The standard liberal response when confronted with these principles is to call people mean and selfish. When the issue is taxes ans wealth redistribution, it’s the same. Conservatives say how they spend their money is their own decision, liberals call them mean and selfish but as it turns out, those who believe in individual liberty not only donate more of their salary to charity, but they also donate more blood too.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Yes, there is quite a steep difference between those who approve of being an organ donor and those who are actually signed up, if the numbers quoted are true which I’m assuming they are.
This isn’t signing someone up for netflix or basket weaving classes though, this is signing someone up for having their organs removed. Even if you can opt out, there’s a chance you wont know enough to, and then you end up with unwilling organ donors which is territory no one wants to trod.
If so many approve of donating organs and so few actually are, there’s got to be some gap, some issue with the sign up process. There’s nothing to make me think the opt out process wont be just as skewed.
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM
–Then what is your complaint if you’re going to donate it anyways? The first principle is, even under this law, you have the ability to make that decision.
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Spoken like a true collectivist with a mob rule mentality. If the majority wish to donate their organs, they should have no trouble giving their explicit permission, should they? No need to grant default ownership of people to the state. No need for that at all.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Geez I’d have an easier time explaining chess to my dog. You just don’t understand the principle I’m trying to assert, do you? I may wish to donate my organs but I do not wish the state to assume that this is the case.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Why,good for you! I’m sure that you have made elaborate funeral plans and will be buried with all your earthly possesions. Give us a hint where the pyramid will be built.
katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Look, I’m not for this la nat all. Just trying to get the message out that VOLUNTARY donation is a good thing.
katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 10:12 AM
–Why not, since you have the ability to opt out anyways? Do you have a problem with the state assuming that people in AZ are here legally unless there is probable cause to think otherwise?
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Morals have everything to do with what humans being do to each other, especially in matters of life and death.
Organs don’t grow on trees; they don’t just “become available,” as you yourself put it. That’s such an oblique way to put it — why the euphemism? You have agreed to be an organ donor, but what informed consent can a child give to such a procedure?
The young mother I mentioned in my post got to the heart of the moral dilemma: “I know that I’m hoping for someone else’s child to die.” She was admitting that if someone else’s child didn’t die, hers couldn’t keep on living, and so she was hoping for another child (one she didn’t know and love) to die. Her wish didn’t cause the donor’s death, certainly, but she anxiously awaited news of the donor’s death so that her child could benefit from it.
It’s nothing new, and quite natural, for a mother to want her child to keep on living; what’s new is anticipating some other child’s death, some other mother’s grief.
KyMouse on April 30, 2010 at 10:28 AM
That’s OK Katy, sarcastic mockery will always be a fine substitute for reasoned debate :)
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 10:29 AM
No you’re not, you’re trying to get the message out that people are soulless twits for asserting the primacy of individual rights.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 10:31 AM
I don’t know how many times I have to explain the basic principle at stake here. That is, my body does not belong to the state by default and therefore I should not have to “opt out” of such a default arrangement. If I want to, I can “opt in.” That’s all that’s required. Nor does this issue bear any resemblance to illegal immigration in Arizona, so I’m a little puzzled as to why you’d attempt such an asinine comparison.
Sharke on April 30, 2010 at 10:36 AM
Then you just keep yor little hard on.
katy the mean old lady on April 30, 2010 at 10:37 AM
–A majority of people apparently have a view that they’d like to do this. You have the ability to opt out. That’s nothing to do with who owns your body. You’re shrieking about this whole thing just like you were a twelve year old girl.
Jimbo3 on April 30, 2010 at 10:40 AM
KyMouse,
Yes, they absolutely do. This assumes something is done wrongly. If I give permission for doctors to harvest my organs if I am beyond saving to give someone else life, where is the moral problem here? It only becomes a moral problem when someone has not agreed to donate their organs and it is done anyway.
A child cannot, but their parents can, and that’s how everything with children is handled until they’re of a certain age, acting like it’s some isolated and horrific thing doesn’t make it so. As far as your umbrage with my polite terms, you’re not going to win a debate on life and death by arguing semantics.
I could take the tack of saying you wish for everyone awaiting a transplant to die because you have a problem with consenting individuals giving life to others but that’s a bit dishonest, isn’t it?
I can see how matters of life and death aren’t clean and sanitary, and that someone involved may have rather bittersweet feelings about a loved one living. Is this an argument against organ donation?
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 11:03 AM
Why should anyone ever by surprised by anything collectivists ever do? As the old saying goes: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of liberal minds.”
Individually, each moonbat is a hopelessly ineffectual scatter-brained feeb. But they are all united by a single, utterly uncompromisable meme: THE COLLECTIVE IS ALL.
And that path only goes in one direction.
logis on April 30, 2010 at 11:07 AM
Hardly…You just perceive some selfishness in order to inflate your own sense of charity. Sharke is 100% correct. If he doesn’t own his body, then he really can’t own anything. Might as well be a battery for the ruling class. Removing the altruistic aspect of organ donation turns human parts into commodities. Is that really where we want to go as a society? One might argue yes, but what happens when the leaders of society are no longer scrupulous, honest, or have dignity for human life and property?
Rare circumstances should be ‘opt-out’ situations. No one should have to opt-out of income tax withholding, organ donation, political party donations, union dues, etc. Opting-out just stacks the deck for whatever your pet issue is.
Inanemergencydial on April 30, 2010 at 11:08 AM
Quoting Cassey Fiano from the post:
Of course, it should be an obvious concept that the state DOES NOT OWN our bodies.
Coincidentally, the following essay was linked by AOW over at IBA and it relates to this obvious concept that is easily overlooked.
Negative Liberty vs. Po$itive Liberty
NEGATIVE LIBERTY
Many “freedoms” are documented in our Constitution, specifically in The Bill of Rights: freedom of religion,speech, the press, assembly, petition, the right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. These “freedoms” are clearly documented limitations on the ability of government to interfere with the individual; they are political freedoms protecting the sovereignty of the individual from coercion by the state. The freedoms in the Constitution are termed “negative liberties” or the freedom from restraint. These freedoms are somewhat unique in that once they are possessed they are generally retained at little to no cost. Defending them may have significant cost, but the freedom of religion in and of itself costs us practically nothing.
PO$ITIVE LIBERTY
Lately on the left you have been hearing a lot about freedom and rights; freedom from poverty (housing, clothing, transportation, possessions?), freedom from illness (right to medical care), freedom from starvation (right to food). These freedoms are termed “positive liberties”, and generally involve power. The power to achieve self-realization or the ability to fulfill one’s potential. Positive liberty is often described as the ability or entitlement to achieve one’s ends, while negative liberty is described as the freedom from being forcibly prevented from achieving those ends. Positive liberties generally come at a significant monetary cost to society at large, in that the group must pay for the individual.
The distinction between positive and negative liberty is perhaps the clearest distinction between social liberals on the left and classical liberals on the right. The minimalist government established by our founding fathers was one of negative liberty. Government was seen as a necessary evil and established within a framework of checks and balances designed to enforce its restrictions and limit its actions. The governments of FDR’s New Deal and Johnson’s Great Society were ones of positive liberty, a paternalistic government whose main objective was in taking care of its members.
Blogger Finntann also makes the following point about how we can become condition to desiring po$itive liberties:
Paternalism is hard to argue against, each paternalistic action in and of itself is predominately good, is made with ostensibly the best of intentions. Your parents after all were, or should have been, paternalistic…
Read the entire essay HERE.
heroyalwhyness on April 30, 2010 at 11:10 AM
A typical leftie do-gooder. Hey, he has teh best intentions. It is all for the children.
Sir Napsalot on April 30, 2010 at 11:21 AM
I see where they’re coming from, but opt-outs prey on ignorance, which gives ne’er-do-wells way too much wiggle room for me to be comfortable with this.
Heresy of Cain on April 30, 2010 at 11:31 AM
This Florida billboard “NOW IT’s PERSONAL on I95 Volusia County Fl needs to be adapted and posted in New York to put New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky on notice!
HANDS OFF BRODSKY!
heroyalwhyness on April 30, 2010 at 1:11 PM
I see you eyein’ my spleen, Brodsky!
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 1:15 PM
Keep off my uterus… Oops, Keep your hands off my liver.
Kuffar on April 30, 2010 at 1:30 PM
I’ve been an organ donor since the first moment (30+ years ago) I heard of such a thing. My family knows and agrees, and are also all donors. I’m a major cheerleader for organ and blood donation. The first time I heard someone suggest an “opt out” organ donor program (maybe 10 years ago), I thought it was a GREAT idea!
Until I thought about it.
As I’ve heard people of a certain political persuasion say, “My body, my choice”. Of course, when liberals say that, there are actually TWO people’s bodies involved, and then (as always) they want to strip away the rights of one person for the benefit of the other.
A few responses to things I’ve read here:
- As my opening lines suggest, *I* own my body. If I don’t own my body, then who does? The government? So which is it: does the government own US, or do we own IT? Are we a people of the government, by the government, and for the government? Or is it the other way around?
- For those who say giving organs should be done ONLY out of altruism — do you ever get paid for providing a product or service? Why don’t YOU do it “only out of altruism”? I’ll tell you why: because people have a right to be paid for giving up something that belongs to them. They can waive that right, and give things up for free, but they don’t have to.
- For those who say that paying for organs takes advantage of the poor — I’m just speechless. Which takes greater advantage: taking their organs, and leaving their heirs just as poor as before; or taking their organs, and giving their heirs a little help? I suppose paying people for work takes advantage of them, too; I mean, they may not actually WANT to work, but the lure of a paycheck may entice them to work when they didn’t really want to. Curse those employers!
- As for “hoping some other child dies”, that’s a wrong and unfair way to couch it. In a nation of 300 million people, there are – what, 80 million children? I have bad news: some of them are going to die today. And more tomorrow. And the day after that. What the mother of our sick child should be hoping is not THAT they will die (because they WILL); but that one of them that WILL die anyway will donate an organ that will save her child’s life.
This is a heinous abuse of government power. The fact that it is well intentioned does not change that fact.
RegularJoe on April 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM
First, the state said it had first claim on our income.
Second, the state said it had first claim on our organs.
Tantor on April 30, 2010 at 2:28 PM
It’s not far-fetched.
When the were going after the cigarette companies years ago I said that they were “only the first” and that soon we’d have ludicrous laws against fast food – now those laws are starting to come out of the woodwork. It’s the tip of the iceberg – once Uncle Sam controls what you put IN to your body he’ll start regulating what you can DO with that body. Hey, you ride motorcycles? Sorry, that’s a hazardous activity that’s completely unnecessary and you could get seriously hurt – which means the U.S. Taxpayer will have to pay to patch you back up. Same goes for Scuba Diving, Sky Diving, Water Ski, Snow Ski, Skateboarding …
Tailgates and Barbequeing? OUTLAWED – the carbon contributes to global warming and there are carcinogens involved in charbroiling – sorry.
And, uhm … Grandma, sorry but those blood clots you keep having – yeah we can’t really pay for the treatment on those because you really aren’t a contributing member of society anymore. BUT – those lovely Blue Eyes of yours … yeah, we can use those.
At the end of the line you basically have 1984 – a boring assed life where the government dictates when and where you can fart.
HondaV65 on April 30, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Actually, it is. The question is very specific, is it out of the realm of possibility? Why, no, it isn’t. It’s also not out of the realm of possibility that an alien spaceship will show up tomorrow.
Is it out of the realm of probability? Yes. Let’s not get carried away.
Heralder on April 30, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Agreed. Contrary to what our President has said, most doctors are neither foot-poachers nor murderers.
RegularJoe on April 30, 2010 at 7:59 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2