Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:34 PM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,901

Organ donation is switching to opt-out in the UK


I know we've debated this on the board before now, but it's actually happening here in the UK, but I posted this in MPSIMS because I thought it's interesting, but I don't see the need for another argument.

Next year, organ donation will switch to an opt-out model in the UK.

https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/hel...pt-out-system/
  #2  
Old 09-11-2019, 02:46 PM
Nava is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Hey! I'm located! WOOOOW!
Posts: 42,537
Good! Says a person from a country that's officially opt-out (extraofficially, apparently some docs still haven't gotten the memo).
  #3  
Old 09-11-2019, 07:25 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-11-2019 at 07:26 PM.
  #4  
Old 09-11-2019, 08:29 PM
panache45's Avatar
panache45 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NE Ohio (the 'burbs)
Posts: 46,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
Nobody is assuming that.
  #5  
Old 09-11-2019, 08:48 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Nobody is assuming that.
That's exactly what's being assumed if the state is claiming the right to have you vivisected and harvested for parts unless you specifically ask that they not.
  #6  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:02 AM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
That's exactly what's being assumed if the state is claiming the right to have you vivisected and harvested for parts unless you specifically ask that they not.
Your basic premise is wrong. Once you're dead, there is neither life nor you. The part that remains after death is merely medical waste. Is it your position that the state has no interest in maintaining control over medical waste?
  #7  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:19 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 32,621
Good on you guys across the pond! I'll be raising my glass to you later tonight.
  #8  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:39 AM
MissTake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Here
Posts: 4,399
As an organ recipient, I flail my arms like Kermit, yelling "YEAAHHHH!!!"
  #9  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:48 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
The part that remains after death is merely medical waste.
The fact that what remains contains organs of interest seriously undermines the idea that it's "waste".
  #10  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:52 AM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 12,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
No right is absolute; one's rights are inevitably balanced against the needs and interests of others.

You have the right to free speech, provided you're not falsely yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie house.

You have the right to practice whatever religion you want, provided it doesn't involve human sacrifice.

You have the right to own property, provided you reaffirm that right in a timely manner when it's challenged (see adverse possession). If you don't do so, then it's assumed that the property wasn't really that important to you.

You have the right to determine the post-mortem fate of your body, provided you actively affirm that right on at least one occasion while still alive. If you never thought about it while you were alive, and never bothered to assert that right before you died, then apparently it wasn't that important to you.

The OP's link doesn't really make it clear what the expected consequences of this opt-out system will be. It mentions 411 people died last year waiting for organs, and that about 5000 people per year die under circumstances in which their organs could be harvested. It does not say how many of those 5000 people do currently donate organs, or how many of the 411 people could have been saved under an opt-out system. Anybody have more info?
  #11  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:57 AM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
Just want to make sure; are you against the Draft also?
  #12  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:04 AM
rsat3acr is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
That's exactly what's being assumed if the state is claiming the right to have you vivisected and harvested for parts unless you specifically ask that they not.
FWIIW one can only be vivisected if one is alive, if one is dead they are dissected.
  #13  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:05 AM
Sunny Daze's Avatar
Sunny Daze is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Bay Area Urban Sprawl
Posts: 12,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
That's exactly what's being assumed if the state is claiming the right to have you vivisected and harvested for parts unless you specifically ask that they not.
Vivisection implies that you're still living, which you won't be.
  #14  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:12 AM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
The fact that what remains contains organs of interest seriously undermines the idea that it's "waste".
What, you think waste has no value? Where have you been? There's around thirty thousand recycling facilities that would disagree with you.
  #15  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:32 AM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
What, you think waste has no value?
Notwithstanding recycling, waste in general has negative value.

And where is the evidence that "opt-out" organ donation is in fact based on the assertion that dead bodies are waste that the state has some inherent right to control?
  #16  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:03 AM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Notwithstanding recycling, waste in general has negative value.

And where is the evidence that "opt-out" organ donation is in fact based on the assertion that dead bodies are waste that the state has some inherent right to control?
Waste is not fungible, what has value to some has negative value to others. Even your household garbage can be worth something to someone, yet once it's out at the curb it doesn't belong to you. Once you've left your corpse there in a hospital bed are you claiming that it still belongs to you? There isn't a you for it to belong to anymore. A corpse doesn't own anything. And yes, the state does have an inherent right to control the disposition of dead bodies.
  #17  
Old 09-12-2019, 02:23 PM
Xema is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Door View Post
... once it's out at the curb it doesn't belong to you.
Yes, once you actively designate trash for disposal - and indeed pay someone to haul it off - it's not yours.


Quote:
Once you've left your corpse there in a hospital bed are you claiming that it still belongs to you?
No. But in a great many human societies over the past hundred thousand year or so, it gets dealt with by those close to you: family & relatives.


Quote:
And yes, the state does have an inherent right to control the disposition of dead bodies.
Where do you discern this legal principle?
  #18  
Old 09-12-2019, 03:15 PM
ticker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,060
I'm glad. If I ever get squished out riding my bike, anyone in need is welcome to any un-squished organs.
  #19  
Old 09-12-2019, 04:13 PM
bump is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
Seems to me that's the point of the opt-OUT part of the deal. In essence, if you're a person who thinks that they need their full complement of organs in their dead body for some reason at burial or cremation, then they have the option to refuse (i.e. opt-out).

Otherwise, it's more of a situation where IF there's a waiting transplant recipient that matches you after you've died, then your organs will be given to them.

Nobody said anything about doing anything to anyone living... other than the transplant recipient.
  #20  
Old 09-12-2019, 04:19 PM
aruvqan is offline
Embracing the Suck
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Eastern Connecticut
Posts: 16,806
Hm, only issue I see is people with certain medical conditions that preclude being used for parts - you can have stage 4 cancer without even knowing about it, and unless they scope every part of your body, they may not realize that that little bone graft they just harvested belonged to a person with stage 4 pancreatic cancer ... oops.

I am rather upset that even if my own cancer was totally cured, and never ever returns, I am now forever barred from donating anything [unless it is for dissection or test to destruction of bits and pieces] and I had to update my drivers license to reflect my nondonor status =(
__________________
"Rammstein might not be the most sophisticated band there is, but who doesn't like the smell of napalm in the evening air"
  #21  
Old 09-12-2019, 04:32 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
Just want to make sure; are you against the Draft also?
I consider it obsolete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rsat3acr View Post
FWIIW one can only be vivisected if one is alive, if one is dead they are dissected.
And if one is dead, then their organs are no good anymore.
  #22  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:34 PM
Bill Door is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Yes, once you actively designate trash for disposal - and indeed pay someone to haul it off - it's not yours.



No. But in a great many human societies over the past hundred thousand year or so, it gets dealt with by those close to you: family & relatives.



Where do you discern this legal principle?
Wait, you think the state doesn't have any say in the disposition of human remains? You can grind it up and make sausage out of it? You can throw it into a hole in the back yard without paperwork or documentation? You can feed it to your pets or turn the skull into an ashtray? You can shellac it and use it for a lawn ornament? There are hundreds, possibly thousands of laws concerning what can and can not be done with a human body.

Do you have a cite that these laws have been overturned because for the past hundred thousand years it gets dealt with by family and relatives? Because if you think your next of kin own your body after your death, you're wrong.
  #23  
Old 09-12-2019, 06:39 PM
Kimera757 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 577
Quote:
Originally Posted by kayaker View Post
Good on you guys across the pond! I'll be raising my glass to you later tonight.
I'm in total agreement with this. I wish they would bring this to Canada.
  #24  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:12 PM
Guinastasia's Avatar
Guinastasia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 52,865
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
And if one is dead, then their organs are no good anymore.
If that's the case, then how the hell are doctors managing it, seeing as how most organs come from dead people?
__________________
Itís not you, itís your sports team.
  #25  
Old 09-12-2019, 07:34 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,283
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
...
And if one is dead, then their organs are no good anymore.
You might want to look into the subject of organ donation before you further embarrass yourself.
  #26  
Old 09-12-2019, 08:58 PM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
This is a rather odd position for you to take, given your rather Stalinist politics. You spend half your time on these boards arguing that the state and its agents should be deferred to on almost every possible occasion. Why do you object to our dead bodies being state property, when you seem to believe that we're pretty much state property for most of our lives?
  #27  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:00 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhendo View Post
This is a rather odd position for you to take, given your rather Stalinist politics. You spend half your time on these boards arguing that the state and its agents should be deferred to on almost every possible occasion. Why do you object to our dead bodies being state property, when you seem to believe that we're pretty much state property for most of our lives?
Because I don't like the idea of the state killing me in order to provide parts for someone more "important".
  #28  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:03 PM
Loach's Avatar
Loach is offline
The Central Scrutinizer
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Pork Roll/Taylor Ham
Posts: 25,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Because I don't like the idea of the state killing me in order to provide parts for someone more "important".
Pretty sure thatís still illegal.
  #29  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:06 PM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
If that's the case, then how the hell are doctors managing it, seeing as how most organs come from dead people?
If the heart is beating and the lungs are drawing breath, then the person is not "dead".
  #30  
Old 09-12-2019, 09:09 PM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Because I don't like the idea of the state killing me in order to provide parts for someone more "important".
My mistake. Your problem is not political inconsistency; it's medical and scientific ignorance.

No problem.
  #31  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:15 AM
kambuckta is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: The Pilbara, Australia.
Posts: 10,069
Yay. Wish they'd bring in opt out in Aus.
  #32  
Old 09-13-2019, 04:47 AM
JoseB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Den Haag, NL
Posts: 1,693
About time. Spain (my country of birth) has been "opt-out" for quite a while, and recently the Netherlands (the country where I live) has become "opt-out" as well. A good development, in my opinion.
__________________
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!
  #33  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:10 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
Disappointing. It should never be assumed by default that one's life and one's body are the property of the state.
It's only assumed for people who can't be bothered to opt one way or the other.
  #34  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:15 AM
Jasmine's Avatar
Jasmine is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 2,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by panache45 View Post
Nobody is assuming that.
Yes, they are.

Also, what happens if you are not renewing next year. Does your current license choice of "no" remain in place, or is it automatically switched to "yes"? In other words, are you grandfathered in the old system or not?
__________________
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge."
--Daniel J Boorstin
  #35  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:33 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xema View Post
Notwithstanding recycling, waste in general has negative value.
Bullshit.


Last edited by Snowboarder Bo; 09-13-2019 at 07:35 AM.
  #36  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:33 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
It's only assumed for people who can't be bothered to opt one way or the other.
In which case, the default assumption should be "no", because one's body is the only property one can truly and inalienably own, and it should require more of an act of omission before you chop it up and sell it for profit.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 07:36 AM.
  #37  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:37 AM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 27,259
#DeadLivesMatter

Right, Smapti?
  #38  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:40 AM
One And Only Wanderers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Bolton, UK
Posts: 4,173
I've thought for years that it should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Out of interest, can people who are opted-out still receive an organ transplant?
  #39  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:42 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
In which case, the default assumption should be "no", because one's body is the only property one can truly and inalienably own, and it should require more of an act of omission before you chop it up and sell it for profit.
If you don't care, the default is whatever I want it to be, because I do care.

What really should require more than an act of omission is allowing someone to die of liver failure when a transplant would be an effective treatment.

But feel free to explain to us all why the property rights of corpses is more important than life saving organ transplants.
  #40  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:46 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by One And Only Wanderers View Post
Out of interest, can people who are opted-out still receive an organ transplant?
I like the way you think.
  #41  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:46 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
But feel free to explain to us all why the property rights of corpses is more important than life saving organ transplants.
I have the right to decide what happens to my body after I die.

You do not.

A failure on my part to sign a form does not entitle you to override whatever my decision may have been.
  #42  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:47 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by One And Only Wanderers View Post
I've thought for years that it should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Out of interest, can people who are opted-out still receive an organ transplant?
You can stop calling it "donation" if your idea is to compel people to "donate" their organs under pain of death for non-compliance.

I guess "compulsory organ harvesting" doesn't sound as good in the promos.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 07:48 AM.
  #43  
Old 09-13-2019, 07:56 AM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 13,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I have the right to decide what happens to my body after I die.

You do not.

A failure on my part to sign a form does not entitle you to override whatever my decision may have been.
You only get to make the decisions you make. You don't get to make the decisions you might have made, because they are, by definition, not decisions you actually made. Nothing needs to be overridden, because you didn't do anything to override.

BTW, I, through the government, DO in fact decide what happens to your body after you die. The gov't decides where you can be buried, what may and may not be done to a corpse, what disposal or non-disposal options are allowed and not allowed. You, the corpse, certainly don't decide, and even if you wanted to do something specific with your corpse while you were alive, what actually happens depends entirely on the living people who are dealing with your corpse and estate, because you'll be dead by then.
  #44  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:14 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I like the way you think.
I'd like to have an opt-out system, but whether the system is opt-out or opt-in, I've always believed that one good way to deal with the issue is precisely a system in which recipients are prioritized based on their decision about donation. If you believe that organ donation is a useful and valuable procedure, and that it benefits society as a whole, then you can make your own organs available, and in return you will get access to available organs if and when you need them.

Someone who does not want to donate their organs might have perfectly good reasons for making that decision. Their reasons might be religious; they might be personal and moral; they might be pragmatic. But if you have those reasons, then I believe that it's reasonable for society to ask you to be consistent in your reasoning. If you have objections to the system of organ donation when you are the donor, you should be willing to forego some of your privileges as a recipient.

I made this argument to Smapti in a previous thread on this topic, and he complained that such a system is an extortion system rather than a donation system. I replied that I'd be happy to remove the word donation.

It's not organ donation; it's now an organ collective, a sort of medical kibbutz, and if you want to reap the harvest, you have to be prepared to help sow the crops. You are perfectly welcome not to be a part of the collective. You're not being held hostage; you have an opportunity to make a decision about your involvement well before there is any likelihood of you either needing an organ or being in a position to provide one.

My collective will even be generous enough to offer organs to non-members, as long as all needy members have been taken care of first. We're not monsters.

I should add, by the way, that in recent years I've also become persuaded that there would be significant benefits to society as a whole if we removed the prohibition on selling organs, at least as it pertains to organs that can be donated while a person is still alive, like kidneys.. I've read all of the criticisms of this idea, from black markets to kidnapping to exploitation of the poor, but I think many of the fears are overblown, and the benefits would outweigh the drawbacks. The fact is that organs are a scarce and valuable commodity, and that people should be allowed to sell their own organs if they are properly informed of the risks and consequences, and if they are willing accept those risks and consequences in exchange for remuneration.

I understand that some people see this as macabre, and some will argue that we shouldn't be allowed to profit from someone else's dire need. But America's medical system is a massive source of profit and economic gain at just about every level of the system; why not let the actual donors get in on the action?
  #45  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:15 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You only get to make the decisions you make. You don't get to make the decisions you might have made, because they are, by definition, not decisions you actually made. Nothing needs to be overridden, because you didn't do anything to override.
And what evidence do you have that I didn't make that decision?

None, which is why "cut him up and sell him for scrap" is not a viable default.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
You, the corpse, certainly don't decide, and even if you wanted to do something specific with your corpse while you were alive, what actually happens depends entirely on the living people who are dealing with your corpse and estate, because you'll be dead by then.
I am not "the corpse". I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 08:18 AM.
  #46  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:20 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I have the right to decide what happens to my body after I die.

You do not.

A failure on my part to sign a form does not entitle you to override whatever my decision may have been.
Sorry, the government has legally decided this. It'd be illegal for applicable government and health care workers to not do this (for those that have not officially opted "no"), now that the law has been passed. I thought you were in favor of people following the law?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.
Do you have a cite for this? This is kind of a remarkable assertion, and I'm pretty sure it's utter nonsense.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-13-2019 at 08:21 AM.
  #47  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:21 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Sorry, the government has legally decided this. It'd be illegal for applicable government and health care workers to not do this (for those that have not officially opted "no"), now that the law has been passed. I thought you were in favor of people following the law?
The law should be followed. That doesn't preclude me from believing that the law is wrong and ought to be changed.
  #48  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:22 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,312
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
The law should be followed. That doesn't preclude me from believing that the law is wrong and ought to be changed.
By what criteria do you determine that "the law is wrong"? In the past, IIRC, you've asserted that the only possible morality comes from the law.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 09-13-2019 at 08:24 AM.
  #49  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:24 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
By what criteria do you determine that "the law is wrong"? In the past, you've asserted that the only possible morality comes from the law.
I determine that it is wrong because it is not harmonious with my understanding of what the law should be.

Quote:
Do you have a cite for this? This is kind of a remarkable assertion, and I'm pretty sure it's utter nonsense.
Do I not have the right to declare, via my will and my estate, the means by which my body should be disposed of? This is evidence that I, the person and the will, am legally distinct from the body I inhabit.

Last edited by Smapti; 09-13-2019 at 08:25 AM.
  #50  
Old 09-13-2019, 08:25 AM
mhendo is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 25,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I am not "the corpse". I am the human individual that owns that body, and my property rights do not cease upon its expiration.
Speaking of bodily ownership, my property rights to my body extend to putting into it whatever I like. Laws against drug use are therefore immoral.

I'm the human individual who owns the product of my labor. My property rights in that product cannot be taken by the government, and therefore taxation is theft.

I assume you'd agree with both of those things?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017