From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 29 Dec 1992 02:40:18 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) says:

>Somehow, a thread got started in t.p.g about restricting one's organs
>for donation after one's death.  Specifically, some writers do not wnat
>their organs used in states that have mandatory helmet laws, and have
>begun carrying cards to that effect.  Another poster spoke of a change
>in the law in some state that would have organ donation as the default
>case, leaving you responsible for "just saying no" to organ donation
>via some sort of non-donor card you would have to carry.
>
>I added misc.legal and would have added the new medical politics group,
>but I don't remember the name. . .
>
>Ok, suppose you have a card saying you do not grant permission to use
>your organs in any state with a mandatory helmet law (or oppressive
>gun control laws, for that matter).  Suppose you die and you are in a
>state with mandatory harvesting laws or in which you are a voluntary
>donor except for the restriction on use in offensive states.
>
>What's to prevent the patient from flying from Badstate to where you lie
>dying?  How's the surgeon in Goodstate who is parting out your hulk
>supposed to know where the kidney he's working on is going?  Even if it 
>goes to Badstate eventually, what recourse does the dead guy have? 
>Repossession?  (Sounds like an old horror flick plot!  :-)
>
>Seem to me like you might have more luck specifying that the organ cannot
>be used in boycotted states without a substantial donation to the advocacy
>group of your choice, but may be freely used elsewhere.  The advocacy
>group would have clear standing to take action if it were discovered that
>your wishes had been violated.  Your family may be too grief-stricken
>(or maybe too happy--who knows?) to look into how your leftovers were
>employed.  Also, they may not agree with your position on the issue,
>especially if you assumed room temperature as a result of riding without
>a hardhat.
>
>Maybe an even better strategy would be for bikers to form their own
>organ donor network and carry cards showing that their organs were
>donated to and property of that network and could only be used according to
>that network's policies.  If the corpse is property of the estate and you
>have directed that it be used in this manner, then your heirs would have 
>no reason to interfere if your wishes were carried out but would have
>some standing to sue if your wishes were ignored.
>
>Bill
>-- 
>gray@hawkmoon.mn.org
>This site gets a fair news feed, but e-mail is more reliable. . . :-(
>"Veni, vidi, vomiti!"  -- the ghost of Tom Jefferson on reading the Brady Bill
>
Almost every proposal int his post is in violation of federal law.  All
donated organs must be processed through a national data base, and it is
illegal for any considerations other than medical ones to be used in deciding
who gets which parts.  You cannot say, "Only residents of Goodstate" or "Only
bikers".  These clauses are also unenforceable, since the recipient's
identity is protected by the same law....you will have no way of proving that
your conditions were adhered to.

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7090 talk.politics.guns:25723