From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 1992 14:23:09 GMT

In article <92358.193229DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <168C6BD36.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu>, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David
>Veal) says:
>>
>>In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>><DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>
>>>In article <1992Dec22.015659.1989@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu>, jrm@gnv.ifas.ufl.edu
>>says
>>>>
>>>>CNN reports this day that the 'Communitarian Party/coalition' wishes
>>>>to make into law the requirement to donate organs upon death.
>>>
>>>The actual law would make organ donation the default option, which
>>>individuals and families could reject.  In fact, they would have
>>>to be informed of their right to reject the organ donation.  It seems
>>>to me that this retains the individual right to dispose of their
>>>affairs.
>>
>>        The decision should be the individual's.  What this group is
>
>How does it become not the individual's decision if I change the line
>on the form from "I agree to donate ..." to "I do not agree
>to donate.." ?????  The only change is that the wording of the form
>signifies that the institutional bias is in favor of organ donation.

       Institutional bias in favor of "Unless you make a big deal we
own your body and its disposition."  A bias in favor of "You have to make
a big deal of things in order to make your own decision instead of living
with ours."

>I'll offer an alternative compromise.  Allow hospitals to choose which
>form they use.

        Hell, for all the good it does me, I at least *vote* for the
government idiots.  I don't even have *that* protection with the
doctors.

>Allow hospitals to be paid for the organs they collect
>which are subsequently used.  The free market will soon make the
>form suggested by the communtarians the preferred form.

        I don't get it.  What makes "the free market" any more appropriate
to say "Unless you complain, we're sticking you with the decision we think
is best," than the government?  They're still saying the burdon of taking
back what is yours is on your head.  Sort of like RICO laws.

>>proposing is making a decision and then "allowing" the people involved
>>to reject it.  I'd just as soon make my own decisions, thank you.
>
>>          What the group has proposed in a system which makes such a thing
>>much more possible and likely.  One "default" change isn't a who lot.
>
>Nonsense.  They have proposed a change of about 3 lines of text on a standard
>form that patients receive.  It completely preserves the patient's right to
>retain their organs after death.  It would not involve any additional
>government offices.  It doesn't confiscate any person's property.  It makes one
>statement.

        It is quite apparent that the group thinks that organ donation will
increase dramatically under their new "system."  That isn't a major change?

>The preference of this society is for organs to be donated.

        If that were the case, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
Obviously organs are not being donated.

>No organs go to the government.  You don't have to let the government
>know about your decision.

        But unless I go to the hospital I end up at before I die then I
have to donate my organs whether or not those are my wishes.  I don't relish
trying to reach every hospital I might end up at.  Which, of course, is the
point.  Make it difficult to exercise your disposition rights to your own
body and people will accept the "default" decision.

>>But this sort of precedent can be a problem.  How *many* decisions are
>>you prepared to allow them to change the default on?  And how many
>>government offices are you prepared to set up in order for it to
>>be easy to let the government know of your decision?  And why *should*
>>I be required to let the government know of my decision, anyway?  If my
>>organs belong to anybody, it certainly isn't the government.
>>         Ben Franklin said (though he probably stole it) that the
>>two sure things in life were death and taxes.  Looks like he was more right
>>than he knew.
>
>He forgot knee-jerk reactions to any proposal, however intelligent, from any
>group with a name beginning "comm-".

        The name makes it neither more nor less stupid, and I resent the
implication.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu