Then it’s too late! We’re already sliding down your slippery slope, so rejecting an opt-out system of organ donation cannot stop us.
There’s not a membership “box”, just a webpage with no options other than “join now”.
Please provide a link that does require me to join anything. I’m done trying to make yours work.
Not even going to bother. If you don’t understand what’s wrong with this analogy when you’re comparing harvesting the bodies of those already deceased by unrelated causes with mandatory organ donations and slavery, then you’re even worse than Smapti.
Oh, please - you’re saying that anything that has a net benefit for society as a whole is justifiable, and you can’t see the problems with that? You have your head in the sand.
You’re insulting other posters here. Stop it now.
No, I’m not. I never asserted anything of the sort.
I would personally prefer being “in a coma with no chance of recovery” to being dead, and I deny any assertion that the state has the right to make that decision on my behalf on the basis of my having neglected to check a box.
When I closed the membership page the article was underneath. I didn’t sign up for anything, and I can read the article just fine.
Should your family lose everything they own to fulfill your wishes? When they have run out of money, who gets to pay your bills?
We already have several people in this very thread stating that people should either be forced to consent to organ “donation”, or be left to die.
When death is the penalty for not engaging in forced charity, your body is no longer your own; it is the chattel of the state to be disposed of as it deems fit.
I’m comfortable with that. I can’t spend the money after I’m dead.
In one sentence, you manage to get how many things wrong?
- “In a coma with no chance of recovery” is neat; with brain damage, you’re pretty much functionally dead. If there’s no chance of recovery, there’s little effective difference. You certainly wouldn’t notice a difference.
- It was hospital policy to take Navarro off the respirator, this was made before the organ donors came into play to begin with.
- There was no box checked, it had nothing to do with that.
- The state made no such decision - the hospital did.
I count four. Anyone else spot more?
From the standpoint of an individual, there’s no functional difference.
After you’re dead it’s not your money to spend. It would take very little time to run through whatever moneys you’ve managed to hoard during your lifetime-after you’ve forced your family to spend their inheritance on your upkeep, would you have them use all their money too?
They’re saying they should not be privy to a medical procedure that is entirely reliant on the participation of willing individuals without being such a willing individual.
So I’m confused. Is denying people organs they need “condemning them to death” or not? Because if so, you are condemning people to death by refusing to offer your organs.
OK, when I click on the link I don’t see a membership “box” and there is nothing underneath it. The “JOIN NOW!” is the entirety of the webpage and there is no way to close just the exhortation to join. One more time: There is no “box” to close, just a page, on it’s own. No little “x” to click to close anything. Nothing separate to close. No way to access this article.
I did try to get to a homepage and look for something relevant from there, but no go.
So, please, now that it’s a page later, tell what the point of that link was and/or if the same information is available elsewhere from something that doesn’t require me to join up.
Well, in this country if a disabled person runs out of money they’re warehoused in a “nursing home” or “long term facility” or whatever current term is in vogue until they die of something like infected bed sores due to insufficient staffing that leads to no one being available to turn/shift you on a decent schedule because, you know, if you don’t have money you don’t get decent health care.
All the more reason to spend it while I’m still alive, then.
Yes.
To be able to give someone an available and genetically compatible organ in order to save their life, but to refuse to do so because of political concerns, is to condemn them to death.
To cause the organ to not be available in the first place is not.
Which is entirely incompatible with the “first, do no harm” credo that several people upthread have claimed to espouse.
From an article from The Southern Medical Journal titled “When Is An Organ Donor Not An Organ Donor”
However
You are aware that the reason this is an issue to begin with is that the demand for organs far outweighs the supply, correct? It’s not “be able but refuse for political reasons”, it’s more “be able to but give to someone else instead”.
This is completely wrong, as no harm is being done.