Nope, if they are too stupid to know what is going on in the world, fuck em.
This is already a rule.
Nope. You don’t pay in, you don’t get to take out.
This is already the law.
And, I am not a big beleiver in Capital punishment in any case.
Instead of “organ donation”, “organ transfer” or “organ transplantation”, we could call it the “grand conspiracy to get at Smapti’s delicious organs”. I’m willing to call it that.
Is that a question? In any case, since you didn’t bother to actually reply to what I said, I have no reason to reply to you.
Obviously, I don’t understand that because I’m a moron who thinks that people with AIDS and generalized cancer should give their organs.
See my use of “willing to do for others”. If they can’t allow others to live by having their organs harvested*, then the problem is not that they are not willing.
In an individual sense, that is true. In a systemic sense, it does serve medical purposes to give people that major incentive to be an organ donor.
Hell, the next thing you know they’ll be burning the dead to ashes (crackle, crackle, crackle) or burying them in boxes. The horror!
The dead have no rights to anything.
I guess you won’t be concerned when you die, then, and the state immediately seizes all your money and property and kicks your family out on the streets because it doesn’t belong to them.
Except, as demonstrated upthread, it isn’t.
I’ll thank you for acknowledging that referring to it as “organ donation” is a lie, then, since you consider it to be a payment and not a gift.
Except, as demonstrated upthread, that you believe it’s OK to sentence people to death if they have organs other people want, and that it’s OK to sentence people to death if they’re not an organ donor.
Whereas I only believe in sentencing people to death if they’ve committed a crime.
The differences between organ donation and inherited property have already been explained in this thread. Your property actually belongs to someone living and can be passed on because it’s still useful after the original owner dies. Your organs are of no use to you once you die, and even then most people here are giving you the option to die with them if you want that for some reason.
So why is it that there’s been only one example that even the most paranoid on the subject has been able to provide, and that example was of a terminally ill patient who had gone into a coma he almost certainly never would have come out of?
Ouch. That’s… Wow.
You provided an example of a terminally ill patient who was being denied the care provided by a respirator on the grounds that all it was doing was prolonging the inevitable. The man was going to die either way. The difference was a handful of hours of his life, or useful organs for donation. Your example could not have been worse, and your citation is an emotional blog post. Hell, it goes out of its way to state:
Slightly different story. “He had many more years” vs. “his brain had been damaged, he would not recover”. I dunno about you, I’m going with the NYT’s version.
No, we’re not, any more than pulling the plug on terminally comatose patients is a step down the slippery slope to killing people who get a case of the sniffles. By the evidence we can gather, Navarro was, at the time, “a living person” almost in the same way Terry Schiavo was.
Capital punishment for assuming someone would donate their organs.
