[QUOTE=Bill Door]
Your remains are no more than medical waste. You have no more right to complain about being deprived of them than a child who had his tonsils taken out.
[/QUOTE]
Your perception of the organs of a dead person as valueless does not give the government the right to them; I have every right to object to the idea of a government considering my body to be its property to do with as it sees fit.
[QUOTE=amrussell]
I don’t want an outright ban on smoking because the level of policing/government control required for that - basically, CCTV cameras in the home - strikes me as brutally excessive, even for the higher benefit in lives saved.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe that such a ban could be enforced completely, but I suspect a ban without the totalitarian measures you’re assuming would still probably save more lives (from medical consequences of smoking, that is - I’m ignoring the increased costs in lives that would be associated with the smuggling and underground economies that would follow such a ban.) than the 1000 this measure claims to expect to save.
I don’t know enough about the UK’s tax structure to say anything about how possible a complete tobacco ban might be. In the US, I believe that it is impossible, because so-called sin taxes, and the tobacco settlement monies, are a huge part of state and local governmental revenues. I do not believe that it is possible, at this point, to get away from tobacco - because it would cost too much to give up those revenues.
Which is part of why an opt-out plan, transplanted to the US, would annoy me so much. The gov’t would be willing to unilaterally claim the bodies* of its citizens in the name of public health, while accepting blood monies from an industry that causes far more deaths than such a policy could possibly save. There’s also the problem I have with the fact that everyone else involved in organ and tissue donation is going to be well compensated for their time and expertise. Except the donor or the donor’s family.
IMNSHO the only reason that the organs of the deceased have no monetary value, as others have said in this thread, is because the governments involved have, by fiat, acted to prevent the sale of such things. Now, I’m not saying that’s the wrong decision. I understand many of the arguments against allowing the sale of organ or tissue. The most radical change I’m willing to advocate is to try to open up a discussion of whether the wrongs inflicted by allowing the open sale of organs would be outweighed by the good of increasing the supply that may follow from such a change. I don’t know the answer to that, but in the current political climate, I don’t think the question has been even asked.
But to have the lack of monetary value used as a rationale to justify confiscating organs from the deceased seems like something of a conflict of interests. Since it is a different arm of the confiscatory organization that has decreed that those same organs it wants have no economic value.
*Sure, you can contest that claim, but the gov’t is in effect saying that it will own your physical remains, unless you fill out form MINE-1253.67(a). That seems pretty unilateral to me.
It’s very depressing to see so many people who are willing to ignore the wishes of the deceased. Setting public policy on the basis of “It will save 1,000 lives” is the road to tyranny.
Something that hasn’t been addressed is that organ donation is not a binary decision. I am willing to donate my organs under certain conditions, and only under those conditions. Unfortunately, the government wants a yes or no answer, not yes with conditions, so I am forced to say no.
The government should never assume it has the right to harvest organs from a person’s body without that person’s explicit consent, or the consent of that person’s chosen representative.
I am currently signed up as an organ donor and my family knows of my position on this (and none of them have ever voiced any objections). However, if the US were ever to switch over to the opt-out system, I would opt out. Heck, I’d encourage everyone I know to opt out in such a system, just as a way of saying we think that’s the wrong way to do it. Like many others here, I would object to the idea that the government has the right to do this.
I’d have no objection to a ‘hard opt-in’ as mentioned earlier in this thread…that is, a system where my family can’t overrule my wishes after my death. I think a persuasive approach is better than a compulsive method of easing the supply of organs, yet I’ve never seen nor heard any advertisement encouraging people to be organ donors.
[QUOTE=One And Only Wanderers]
There’s an outright ban on the use of Heroin, cocaine etc, yet I haven’t yet found a CCTV camera in my house.
[/QUOTE]
Have you looked everywhere? :eek:
[QUOTE=DLuxN8R-13]
It doesn’t, though. Just because there’s no intrinsic value for them to the decedent, that doesn’t make the decedent or any part of him/her the rightful property of the government to be taken and used as outside entities see fit. This is all about one’;s body and existence not being owned by anyone but oneself; any argument that undermines personal autonomy here is invalid..
[/QUOTE]
But it does not undermine personal autonomy. You are free to opt out. You are free to have a conversation with your family. It is far less of an imposition than are taxes, for example, because you can opt out altogether and because what is being taken has no value.
And you’re incorrect; if your body was owned by only yourself, upon your death it would be owned by no-one, as would your posessions. I would imagine that your position is that your family owns those things after death, no?
[QUOTE=Lightnin’]
Religious reasons? No, that’s just stupid. If your religion says that your shuffled-off mortal coil is more important than potentially saving someone else’s life, you’re in the wrong god-bothering club.
[/QUOTE]
:rolleyes: Don’t worry, I also won’t ask to receive an organ either.
What’s the debate? People feel it’s too much to ask to go to the DMV in support of their religious convictions?
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
What’s the debate? People feel it’s too much to ask to go to the DMV in support of their religious convictions?
[/QUOTE]
Forget religious convictions; I shouldn’t have to take one step to protect my personal property from seizure by the government, or by other organizations based on the mandate of the government.
Several years ago my best friend since 2nd grade was in a terrible auto accident and ended up in Intensive Care in a coma. The doctors declared her brain-dead after a week and she was an organ donor. Her parents were pressured to sign off on the forms because many people were waiting for her organs. They hesitated and wanted to think about it for a day or two and right when they were saying goodbye to their daughter and getting ready to sign, she twitched a finger. Today she motors around in her wheelchair and is able to talk, type and ride a horse twice a week. Because of this experience, I am not an organ donor, I do not like the idea of opt-out and I don’t even like the idea of a “hard” opt-in. Since some people seem to be bewildered that anyone could hold my view, I thought I would share my experience. I’m sure others will believe this to a “one in a million” occurence, but I am not so sure myself.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
What’s the debate? People feel it’s too much to ask to go to the DMV in support of their religious convictions?
[/QUOTE]
No, it’s not. But you could read the thread and find that out.