Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Petition To Change US Organ Donation System  
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1759 times:

My son (14 months old) received a heart transplant just over a year ago. Since then, I have seen what other families have had to go through as well. I think that the United States should adopt an opt-out system (rather than opt-in) to encourage donation. In countries such as Austria, where it is solely the choice of the candidate, rates are almost 100%.

As such, I have created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov to this effect.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...tem-be-opt-out-rather-opt/B04YdczT


When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
39 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1751 times:

Well the fact that the family can disregard the choice of the potential donor is outrageous for sure.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7787 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1745 times:

Well without knowing too much info, I agree on the opt out, but I don't think it should be really hidden. It should be up front: do you want to opt out? Not that you are automatically enrolled and you have to jump through hoops and other hidden stuff to opt out


Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 1732 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
I don't think it should be really hidden. It should be up front: do you want to opt out? Not that you are automatically enrolled and you have to jump through hoops and other hidden stuff to opt out

Agreed. Part of making people more comfortable with it would be knowing that they have the choice.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8669 posts, RR: 43
Reply 4, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1718 times:

Excellent idea, the same thing needs to happen in my country. I've had a donor card for years and wish I didn't need to carry one in the first place.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 2):
jump through hoops and other hidden stuff to opt out

No need for hoops or anything; if you wish to opt out, you have that noted on e.g. your driving licence or passport. Until such time as the document is altered, you carry a standardised paper that you can download, print and sign without supervision or offical confirmation.

[Edited 2013-01-23 17:42:06]


Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6483 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1704 times:

Quoting aloges (Reply 4):
Excellent idea, the same thing needs to happen in my country. I've had a donor card for years and wish I didn't need to carry one in the first place.

The opt-in rate in Germany is apparently around 12%. In Austria (which is opt-out), the opt-out rate is less than 1%.



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3617 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (1 year 5 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1697 times:

I agree with such a move but I would like to see people being informed about it.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 5):
In Austria (which is opt-out), the opt-out rate is less than 1%.

Could that be because most are not even aware? In Greece a similar law comes to effect this year but most haven't even heard about it. I think there should be a formal campaign pointing out such laws if they exist, since they involve each one of us and our bodies.


User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32581 posts, RR: 72
Reply 7, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1593 times:

Absolutely not. People's bodies, people's choice. It needs to remain opt-in.

Some people might be very misinformed/ignorant if it becomes opt-in. So we are supposed to essentially trick them into becoming organ donors when they don't want to? No.

I sympathaize with the problems you and others have gone through, but it's not fair to take advantage of an individual's ignorance to have them donate their organs when many people would not feel comfortable doing so. That's essentially what opt-out means.

[Edited 2013-01-24 11:43:18]


a.
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5556 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Quoting N328KF (Thread starter):
I think that the United States should adopt an opt-out system

Not possible without a Constitutional amendment.

The state has no authority to seize anything without either probable cause or a warrant signed by a judge based on probable cause that a crime has been committed. This includes the body and body parts of deceased persons, which become the property of the next of kin (unless none can be located, process which requires far more time than organ viability).



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineroswell41 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 774 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1575 times:

Allow families of organ donors to be compensated and you will have more organs for donation. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies profit from donation, why not the donor or their family?

User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6056 posts, RR: 29
Reply 10, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 9):
Allow families of organ donors to be compensated and you will have more organs for donation. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies profit from donation, why not the donor or their family?

I never thought about it before, but you're right. The only reason the donor gives it away for free is because they can't argue for it.

I never figured why anyone wouldn't want to donate their organs. I don't need my guts after I'm dead. I also believe that my soul will go to heaven and I don't need my guts for that either. I don't think anyone would want my used liver though.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Quoting roswell41 (Reply 9):
Allow families of organ donors to be compensated and you will have more organs for donation. Doctors, nurses, hospitals and insurance companies profit from donation, why not the donor or their family?


That's a slippery slope. But I guess in the case of the US the Pandora's box is already wide open with women selling their eggs/uterus/children, men selling their sperm, etc.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8164 posts, RR: 8
Reply 12, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 1541 times:

The major problem in my mind is getting families who are going through the total horror of a loved one on life support being asked for a donation. That is brutal on everyone. I'd go with your approach if it saves the difficulty of that position.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is identifying medical conditions that would make some people's donations not acceptable. I just had a tumor removed from my rt kidney - a clear call carcinoma. That puts a burden on me to determine if my organs are "safe". Same with blood donations - when is it safe to return, or will it ever be?


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29788 posts, RR: 58
Reply 13, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1533 times:

My body my rules... Everything goes with me.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5387 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1526 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 13):
My body my rules... Everything goes with me.

Why?

It is not your body at that time because you are no longer a sentient being. It might be your families but it most certainly is not "yours". You're dead.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 7):
Absolutely not. People's bodies, people's choice. It needs to remain opt-in.

  

Quoting tugger (Reply 14):
It is not your body at that time because you are no longer a sentient being. It might be your families but it most certainly is not "yours". You're dead.

Same issue with inheritance. It belongs to you, and as something's owner you get to be the final arbiter of how it will be disposed upon your death. I don't see how one's body is any different than money, stock, or real estate.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5387 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1515 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Same issue with inheritance. It belongs to you, and as something's owner you get to be the final arbiter of how it will be disposed upon your death. I don't see how one's body is any different than money, stock, or real estate.

Yes, I understand but honestly it isn't "yours" at that point. Even when you direct that your family gets your stuff ultimately they can do with it what they wish (provided certain other aspects inheritance are not instituted via a trust etc that survives after your death).

Your family very much can decide for you to donate your organs. Seriously, you ain't you anymore.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29788 posts, RR: 58
Reply 17, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1507 times:

Tugger.

I have no intention of leaving serviceable parts anyway. There here for my enjoyment and i am going to do that.

I share the same view as Mr. Bill Engvall who said, " When i die and go to meet my maker i dont want people to look in and say, he looks great..........No I want them to look in and say, JEEESUS!!! He partied



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5387 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 1498 times:

Quoting L-188 (Reply 17):
I have no intention of leaving serviceable parts anyway. There here for my enjoyment and i am going to do that.

I share the same view as Mr. Bill Engvall who said, " When i die and go to meet my maker i dont want people to look in and say, he looks great..........No I want them to look in and say, JEEESUS!!! He partied

  Yes, of course, if you can live life (and die) that way, why not? And I am glad you did not take offense to my comment. It really was an honest question because I don't actually care what happens to my body if I am dead.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29788 posts, RR: 58
Reply 19, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

There are alo people who believe in reincarnation and also believe you will have problems with those organs that are donated in this life in the bext one.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 20, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 7):
Absolutely not. People's bodies, people's choice. It needs to remain opt-in.

No one is seeking to revoke your right to don your organs or not.

You would just have to choose not to instead of choosing to.
I see nothing wrong with that, as long as the choice is made evident and clear to all, and that people who aren't able to understand the consequences of that choice (mental illness or other) should remain 'out'.

It's just a matter of educating the 'masses' and putting out enough com, possibly as early as school.

It would make a huge difference in the number of organs available and lives saved.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Same issue with inheritance.

It's NOT the same as inheritance. Inheritance can be passed to your descendants, family, loved ones, so that they can enjoy a better life.
Your organs serve you no purpose after your death. They just rot with the rest of your body.

If you died and had no one to give the money to, would you have it buried with you?



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Same issue with inheritance. It belongs to you, and as something's owner you get to be the final arbiter of how it will be disposed upon your death. I don't see how one's body is any different than money, stock, or real estate.

Well I believe the US has inheritance taxes. So parts of your belongings do not go where you choose.

Here if you have children they'll get most of the inheritance (less taxes) no matter what you wish, there is no way to favor one over the others or to give it all to somebody else or a charity.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 22, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 1474 times:

Quoting tugger (Reply 16):
Yes, I understand but honestly it isn't "yours" at that point.

Yes it is. It belongs to me and I will decide what should be done with it. The implication of such a policy, as with an inheritance tax, is very scary because it essentially makes my body, like money, a community asset that I simply borrow for a while and "society" gets to trump my freedom to do what I wish with assets that I own.

Quoting tugger (Reply 16):
Even when you direct that your family gets your stuff ultimately they can do with it what they wish

Because it is then theirs...if I give it to them. And of course I can always give it to them with conditions. If I don't, they get no control.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 20):
It's NOT the same as inheritance.

Yes it is. It's my stuff, and I'll decide what happens to it when I die.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 20):
They just rot with the rest of your body.

If that's what I want to happen they will. If not, then something else will happen.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 20):
If you died and had no one to give the money to, would you have it buried with you?

I'd do whatever I damn well want with it. It's mine.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
Well I believe the US has inheritance taxes.

Which is basically just institutionalized theft and should be abolished immediately. It survives because dead people can't vote.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
Here if you have children they'll get most of the inheritance (less taxes) no matter what you wish, there is no way to favor one over the others or to give it all to somebody else or a charity.

To me that is an unconscionable breach of freedom.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3718 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
I'd do whatever I damn well want with it. It's mine.

Impressive display of selfishness, if I may...

Fortunately, it wouldn't take a very large proportion of the population to stay on the donor list to make a huge difference. I believe most potential donors do not get on the list because of the lack of awareness, information, education, time, or they simply don't think about it.

Such a measure would essentially solve that problem, while allowing those who want to have an anatomically correct cadaver to easily be able to.



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19290 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 1448 times:

As long as opt-out is easy, it should be the system.

And it wouldn't require a Constitutional Amendment. Just do it as part of registering for a driver's license. If you want to opt out, check the (well-marked and obvious) box. You can't argue that it puts an unnecessary burden on objectors to check a box.


User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 3911 posts, RR: 28
Reply 25, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1457 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 6):
I think there should be a formal campaign pointing out such laws if they exist, since they involve each one of us and our bodies.

No, they do not - it involves each one of us and our corpses...

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Same issue with inheritance. It belongs to you, and as something's owner you get to be the final arbiter of how it will be disposed upon your death. I don't see how one's body is any different than money, stock, or real estate.

Shhh, don't give them any ideas or the Democrats will try to create an estate tax for your organs too. Anything above 5 organs gets taxed at 40%. I guess you just need to define what organs are above the 5 threshold - I think for livers and lungs you can do a partial transplant so those probably make sense.

Seriously, though - I am as much against the estate tax as anyone you will find (if I ever get advance notice of my departure and happen to be fortunate enough to have assets above the threshold, fully intend on burning everything above it until I fall below the cap) but I don't think the two situations are comparable in the slightest. Your organs are not something you earned and worked for your whole life, to do as you please, they are just something you were born with. I am not even sure I agree with the possibility of opting out. Wrap yourself around a tree? Hand over that liver, should have been wearing a seat-belt. Riding around in a bike while not wearing a helmet? Sorry, that heart will be much better used providing oxygen to a brain that is actually smart enough to protect the skull that houses it.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5556 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1456 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 20):
No one is seeking to revoke your right to don your organs or not.

You would just have to choose not to instead of choosing to.

That's not how it works here. Any action relating to "giving up" anything must either be explicitly voluntary, or ordered by a court based on probable cause that a crime was committed.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 21):
Well I believe the US has inheritance taxes. So parts of your belongings do not go where you choose.

Inheritance taxes (or, as I like to call them, Death taxes) are still very controversial. While the government does have the right to lay and collect taxes, by definition that only applies to money. For example, they cannot demand a kidney as a "tax", even though most people can live normally with one.

Quoting francoflier (Reply 23):
Impressive display of selfishness

How would you feel if I walked into your house and stole one of your 4 TVs, because I can't afford one, and then I called you selfish when you protested?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
You can't argue that it puts an unnecessary burden on objectors to check a box.

Fine: then agree that it's not an unnecessary burden for people to show photo ID when voting.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19290 posts, RR: 58
Reply 27, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1455 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Seriously, though - I am as much against the estate tax as anyone you will find (if I ever get advance notice of my departure and happen to be fortunate enough to have assets above the threshold, fully intend on burning everything above it until I fall below the cap) but I don't think the two situations are comparable in the slightest. Your organs are not something you earned and worked for your whole life, to do as you please, they are just something you were born with.

Not only that, but they are not money. They cannot just be bequeathed and used by anyone in the way that money can. An organ is only useful to a patient who needs a transplant AND is a match.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 28, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1445 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 23):
Impressive display of selfishness, if I may...

It's mine. I'll do what I want, that's hardly unreasonable.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Just do it as part of registering for a driver's license. If you want to opt out, check the (well-marked and obvious) box.

If using drivers' licenses makes it too difficult to vote then it should also make it too difficult to opt out (or in) of organ donation.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Your organs are not something you earned and worked for your whole life, to do as you please, they are just something you were born with.

Doesn't matter. Just like it doesn't matter whether you inherit money or earned it, it's just as green.

Organs are not community property that I'm just using for a while, they belong to me and I should get the final say on where they go.

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
I am not even sure I agree with the possibility of opting out.

My body, my choice. I don't see what's so complicated about that.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5327 posts, RR: 14
Reply 29, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1441 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 24):
Just do it as part of registering for a driver's license.


What about all those poor folks that don't or can't get a drivers' license or ID? I mean, the country is full of those folks, especially among minorities and the elderly. Isn't it?   

All-in-all, I think an opt-out process will work just fine, so long as it is easy and obvious.

There is a religious aspect to this also, isn't? Aren't there some religions don't allow post-mortem mutilation?

I think the most important part is to make your wishes known to your family and/or friends. They will certainly be the ones making the decision. It probably wouldn't hurt to do the living will thing, if applicable.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away. Never leave your cave without your club.
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3617 posts, RR: 5
Reply 30, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1442 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
No, they do not - it involves each one of us and our corpses...

Technicality. A corpse is still a body. I am not sure how it technically works and if it depends on the organ that is targeted for harvesting, but how does it work with brain-dead patients? Harvesting cannot begin until the patient is pronounced dead. Does this happen when their hearts stop beating? If not, that is a body, not a corpse.

Either way, since when does a body become property of the state once we die?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15693 posts, RR: 26
Reply 31, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1437 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
What about all those poor folks that don't or can't get a drivers' license or ID? I mean, the country is full of those folks, especially among minorities and the elderly. Isn't it?

The plan is an obvious ploy to harvest organs from minorities, the poor, and the disabled.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinedarthluke12694 From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 276 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1422 times:

I'll just add my 2 cents. I believe it should be an opt-out system, as long as it's easy.

Personally, I think everyone should be on the list. If you're not, I won't go as far and call them selfish that they don't want to donate, but come on, you're dead. Wouldn't you want someone to benefit from your body? It's not like you're using it anymore.

Here is the way I think of it. What if YOU were dying and YOU needed an organ. Wouldn't you want someone willing to donate you an organ so you can live? But I guess since you're all nice and healthy, you don't give a crap now do you? And to be on the extreme side, you could have just killed some kid or adult that needed an organ and you might have been the only match for that person, or at least the only match in the database when you registered.



KBNA - "To most people, the sky is the limit. To those who love aviation, the sky is home."
User currently offlinelewis From Greece, joined Jul 1999, 3617 posts, RR: 5
Reply 33, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1415 times:

Quoting darthluke12694 (Reply 32):

Personally, I think everyone should be on the list. If you're not, I won't go as far and call them selfish that they don't want to donate, but come on, you're dead. Wouldn't you want someone to benefit from your body? It's not like you're using it anymore.

It is similar to blood donations, no harm done to the donor and a lot of countries experience shortage. Yet, not too many people donate blood which is unfortunate. It is not selfish, just something you don't think about until you are the one needing it.

Quoting darthluke12694 (Reply 32):
Here is the way I think of it. What if YOU were dying and YOU needed an organ. Wouldn't you want someone willing to donate you an organ so you can live? But I guess since you're all nice and healthy, you don't give a crap now do you? And to be on the extreme side, you could have just killed some kid or adult that needed an organ and you might have been the only match for that person, or at least the only match in the database when you registered.

There are also other things to consider. Some religions prohibit such an act. In addition to that, there are too many horror stories and scare mongering out there. Illegal trade of organs, doctors pronouncing people dead before their time so that they can then sell the organs, even governments selling organs abroad to make some money instead of distributing them within their country for free and so on.


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5556 posts, RR: 6
Reply 34, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1397 times:

Quoting lewis (Reply 30):
Harvesting cannot begin until the patient is pronounced dead. Does this happen when their hearts stop beating?

In all except two states (NY and NJ), legal death is defined (roughly) as the complete and irreversible cessation of electrical activity in the brain as determined by a licensed medical doctor. Note, that lifesaving efforts can be stopped by others (like paramedics) if they determine an injury is incompatible with life, but only a doctor can legally declare someone dead (hence the term DOA, or dead on arrival).

That's right: your heart could still be beating, and you can be pronounced legally dead. In fact, this is exactly what happens in patients who are known organ donors. The doctors will keep the heart beating and the lungs breathing (if possible, of course) by artificial means until the organs are ready for extraction.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13010 posts, RR: 12
Reply 35, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1391 times:

In the USA, our concepts of freedom of religion and the cultures of many here as well as pompus 'religious' politicans means you can only have an 'opt-in' program.

User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6481 posts, RR: 9
Reply 36, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1394 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 31):
The plan is an obvious ploy to harvest organs from minorities, the poor, and the disabled.

I thought it was the exact opposite. You are only given a choice when getting an ID, so only people with IDs would "get into the program".

The cynic in me also thought that people would not want the organs of the minorities/poor/disabled anyway...



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5556 posts, RR: 6
Reply 37, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 1381 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 36):

I thought it was the exact opposite. You are only given a choice when getting an ID, so only people with IDs would "get into the program".

Ah, I see it now. Even still, it would have to be an opt-in program, as you are essentially making a legal declaration of will, which is something that many people aren't capable of. In that case, it would cause undue hardship to bring "proof" to exempt someone from an opt-out program.

It's just too convoluted. Except maybe for the IRS  
Quoting Aesma (Reply 36):

The cynic in me also thought that people would not want the organs of the minorities/poor/disabled anyway...

And boom goes the dynamite.  



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlineflipdewaf From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2006, 1561 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1345 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
Yes it is. It belongs to me and I will decide what should be done with it.

Hang on... where has anyone suggested otehrwise?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22):
If that's what I want to happen they will. If not, then something else will happen.

Hang on... where has anyone suggested otehrwise?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 25):
Riding around in a bike while not wearing a helmet? Sorry, that heart will be much better used providing oxygen to a brain that is actually smart enough to protect the skull that houses it.

Very much agreed.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 26):
How would you feel if I walked into your house and stole one of your 4 TVs, because I can't afford one, and then I called you selfish when you protested?

If he was dead and not ticked a box saying that he doesn't want his things (as this is the only way this analogy works) I'm pretty sure he couldn't give a fuck.

Edit:The thief would also need a TV in order to live and the TV would have to come from a specific source or it would not work correctly. The more I think about it the worse this analogy is.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 26):
Fine: then agree that it's not an unnecessary burden for people to show photo ID when voting.

Give every citizen free photo I.D. then im sure it is the same, make them pay for the I.D. then you are making them pay to vote. Is that the democracy you want?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
If using drivers' licenses makes it too difficult to vote then it should also make it too difficult to opt out (or in) of organ donation.

Are you saying only people with driving licenses should get to vote? Maybe only those who have the cognitive skills to drive with real gears I say.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
Organs are not community property that I'm just using for a while, they belong to me and I should get the final say on where they go.

There has to be an assumtion one way or another or should society just leave you where you die and leave you to rot if you can't get off your arse and make that decision yourself?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 29):
There is a religious aspect to this also, isn't? Aren't there some religions don't allow post-mortem mutilation?

Then tick the damned box! If there is a cult/religion that does not allow its followers to donate organs AND does not allow them to hold writing implements to to be used then I would be very surprised.

Fred

[Edited 2013-01-25 01:50:26]

User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5556 posts, RR: 6
Reply 39, posted (1 year 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1281 times:

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 38):
If he was dead and not ticked a box saying that he doesn't want his things (as this is the only way this analogy works) I'm pretty sure he couldn't give a fuck.

Edit:The thief would also need a TV in order to live and the TV would have to come from a specific source or it would not work correctly. The more I think about it the worse this analogy is.

Before you get all smart aleck-y, why don't you go back and read exactly which parts of the post were quoted.

We were referring to money.

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 38):

Give every citizen free photo I.D. then im sure it is the same, make them pay for the I.D. then you are making them pay to vote. Is that the democracy you want?

Nice job putting words into my mouth. Where exactly have I said you should have to pay to get an ID?

Quoting flipdewaf (Reply 38):

There has to be an assumtion one way or another or should society just leave you where you die and leave you to rot if you can't get off your arse and make that decision yourself?

Well you've done an awesome job of ass/u/ming so far, so why not?



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Congress Decides To Change Historical Facts posted Fri Jun 21 2002 22:48:36 by Radarbeam
How To Watch US TV Shows From Overseas? posted Fri May 18 2012 07:21:02 by comorin
Dutch Apaches Refuse Help To AUS/US posted Fri Oct 22 2010 09:18:53 by Spacepope
President Obama Wants To Increase US Debt To $13T posted Tue Sep 8 2009 09:53:25 by KC135TopBoom
If M.A.N Import The Lion To The US posted Sat Aug 29 2009 21:00:10 by 747400sp
Mexico To Build Wall To Keep US Citizens Out posted Wed Jul 8 2009 20:55:44 by Marcus
Is It Possible To Change My Last Name To This? posted Thu Jul 2 2009 08:09:14 by LH4116
How To Get A US Credit Card Abroad For ITunes posted Sun Apr 5 2009 01:57:31 by ManuCH
Is It Time To Change Car Dealership Model? posted Wed Feb 18 2009 17:27:46 by NorthstarBoy
Clinton Signs Deal To Move US Marines To Guam posted Tue Feb 17 2009 07:23:17 by Aaron747