NY lawmaker to force New Yorkers to become organ donors?

posted at 9:25 am on April 29, 2010 by
[ End of Life Issues ]   

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!

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

Saw this yesterday. My guess is that while Brodsky will try to push this as the peoples’ civic duty to The State, shaming those who voice opposition to his plan, he’ll back down or come up with some sort of ‘opt-out’ for certain special interest groups, if they start claiming that this is all a plot to allow rich people (or, if you’re Al Sharpton, rich white people) to harvest their organs.

jon1979 on April 29, 2010 at 10:03 AM

Wy don’t they just cut to the chase and open up the Soylent Green processing plants now.

percysunshine on April 29, 2010 at 10:22 AM

Cassy, your wording is a little odd. You claim people are being “forcibly” enrolled. This is not the case at all, they are being automatically enrolled and those are two really, really different things.

The idea is to start by making people donors as a default status, and those with objections can opt out.

I agree this is not the right way to go about it though.
If we go back and look at the crux of the problem, it’s rooted in this, which just for the sake of argument we’ll take that as fact:

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.

The problem then seems not to be opposition to the idea, but that the public is not being asked in an appropriate manner. A less intrusive solution would be to make this question and choice more high profile.

While we’re in agreement in saying this approach is heavy- handed, I think how your backing it up is a bit sensational. Use of the words “forcibly” to describe “default” and positing that this is just the beginning of tyrannical state control that can easily lead to treatment denial by the government so they can harvest your organs is ‘truther’ territory.

Heralder on April 29, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Heralder, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch when you consider that countries with nationalized health care routinely deny treatment if it’s too expensive. I wrote a blog post last year about a patient in Oregon who is under the Oregon Health Plan. She had cancer, and was denied funding to treat her cancer. They instead offered to pay for doctor-assisted suicide.

And you might not like my phrasing, but signing someone up to be an organ donor without their permission is indeed forcing NY residents to become organ donors. My question is, how are they going to go about notifying New Yorkers about this if this is passed? How open will they be about the ability to opt out?

Now, tell me. Are these questions *really* that extreme as to be in truther territory? I don’t think it’s going to happen overnight, but is it a possibility? Absolutely. And that’s why this Richard Brodsky should be voted out of office and this idea of forcible organ donation denied.

Cassy Fiano on April 29, 2010 at 11:11 AM

I’m a HUGE believer in organ donation. I think everyone should be an organ donor, in the same way as I think everyone should work hard and be nice. It’s just what people ought to do.

But our organs belong to us, and when we’re gone they belong to our heirs unless we’ve pre-arranged for them to be donated. For the government or anyone else to presume ownership of our organs is just creepy.

So how do you get more people to donate? How about a free annual checkup at the end of every two years as a donor. Or a $5000 check to your survivors if you’re a donor. Organs have value.

You never hear “he needed a transplant, and we had the kidney; but there just wasn’t a surgeon available to do the transplant!” Why is that? Because the doctors (and nurses, and anesthetist, etc.) are making money. That insures people will want to be transplant surgeons. Compensate the donors, and there will be no shortage of them, either.

RegularJoe on April 29, 2010 at 11:12 AM

I want to add that this is just one more step along the path of us being the PROPERTY of the state, not the PROPRIETORS of it. If my organs belong to the state… don’t I?

RegularJoe on April 29, 2010 at 11:19 AM

I understand where you’re coming from Cassy, and part of the problem is that yes, with the ability to deny care on issues totally unrelated to the person’s health we’re open to all sorts of perversions and dangers as a result.

I think the idea of our government denying care to harvest organs is extreme. By saying this, you’re saying the U.S. would just simply murder perhaps thousands or hundreds of thousands of it’s citizens so it could recycle their parts.

I feel people who said that the U.S. government would just murder a few thousand of it’s citizens by flying planes into skyscrapers and blaming Islamic militants so a war could be waged for profit of various types were equally as wrong.

The fact we have a largely liberal government at the moment doesn’t suddenly make these ideas more believable to me or these questions suddenly more pertinent.

That said, I know you’re not saying this will happen, or that you’re huddled in your basement with a kitchen knife waiting for the government to show up for your organs … you’re just stating it’s a possible step forward from this idea of automatic enrolling. I disagree there. Alot of things might be possible, that doesn’t mean they’re at all probable or worth alot of thought.

The case you mentioned about the woman in Oregon is despicable. I don’t feel that it’s indicative of a larger system falling into place here though, unless we end up with some single payer monstrosity.

As for the ‘forcible’ verbage, I might be parsing words a bit too much, but that indicates the use of force. Forcible would be better used if citizens were threatened by show of power or physical violence to enroll. Like I said, I do understand what you’re saying, and agree with your objections to the bill, but the way you phrased the argument seemed a little bit much.

“Unauthorized”, perhaps would better capture the spirit of the wrongness of the idea of the bill.

Heralder on April 29, 2010 at 11:52 AM

Let me see if I’ve got this right. Chuck Schumer wants to go after Facebook because they force customers to opt out of information sharing with 3rd parties, but this assemblyman wants for force people to opt out of organ sharing?

kgs_mvs on April 29, 2010 at 11:56 AM

I guess I just don’t think they’ll see it as murder. Is it murder to let someone die to to health care rationing? I don’t think the government is going to send people to murder anyone for their organs, just that they’ll let the person suffering from cancer die. How is it really different than letting people die from their illnesses just over money? No, I don’t think it will definitely happen as a result of this. (If it did, it certainly wouldn’t be anytime soon.) But why take the risk to find out? My point is just spelling out what I see as the possible negatives of this legislation. Were this nationwide, why would the so-called death panels not use it as a little extra push to deny 68-year-old Grandma Edna chemotherapy?

And for what it’s worth, I despise truthers. 9-11 truthers, the birth certificate truthers. I’m certainly not trying to get into insane territory here. I’m just raising the question of the possibility.

Cassy Fiano on April 29, 2010 at 12:07 PM

Heheh, you’ve always struck me as a grounded person, Cassy … I’m pretty sure you aren’t a conspiracy nut! Positing theoreticals is fun and often useful, even though at the end of the day those theoreticals have their place. I didn’t intend to group you in with truthers, I apologize if it came out that way.

Good article though. I’m a New Yorker, so I find this particularly educational.

Heralder on April 29, 2010 at 12:40 PM

This post has been promoted to HotAir.com.

Comments have been closed on this post but the discussion continues here.

Allahpundit on April 29, 2010 at 8:36 PM