From: VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:29:03 GMT

In article <1992Dec30.184941.6791@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:

>In article <1992Dec30.174740.18045@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>|> In article <1992Dec29.155304.16757@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>|> >  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
>|> >to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
>|> >get a license they ask you what donor status you want, and then the 
>|> >license serves as a legal document.  (I have had a Uniform Donor
>|> >Card in my wallet for almost 10 years, and I just checked and found
>|> >that since my intent is on my driver's license that I no longer need
>|> >carry the card.)
>|> 
>|> 	This is fine Henry, as far as it goes, but what about the question
>|> 	of the default case when the person in question has no "findable"
>|> 	license?  If the default is this "implied consent" crap, then we are
>|> 	no better off.  Imagine a nice new fresh piece of meat, just about to
>|> 	expire, the organs of which are sorely needed...  "Uh, gee... we LOOKED
>|> 	for the  driver's license, but could not find it until several hours
>|> 	after the kidneys (or what have you) had been harvested.  Sorry"
>|> 
>|> 	I can virtually guarantee you that shit like this will happen with
>|> 	increasing frequency until it becomes standard practice (de rigeur,
>|> 	if you will).  And the "but it saves so many lives"  BS will be
>|> 	very liberally and vigorously offered at each and every protestation.
>
>How can anyone sit here and say, "I don't want so-and-so to have my
>organs because I don't agree with his political views."  

        Does it matter how if they can?

>I am personally
>disgusted that someone could have the potential to be so selfish to not
>share something of which they have no need.  

        Fine, be disgusted.  Some people have that potential.

>Everyone should be a donor.
>It shouldn't even be a question.  

        Everyone should.  It, however, *should* be a question, because the 
state doesn't own your body before or after you are dead.

>Why should your dead body have rights
>over it's organs?  

        Your dead body doesn't have right to the organs.  Whomever the 
appropriate heirs have disposition rights regarding your dead body.  A 
person's death does not make their body the property of that state or the 
medical industry.

>Should your dead body still be considered a person
>according to the law?  What utter bullshit!

        Who has suggested the body still be considered a person?  All that 
has been suggested is that the state, the medical industry, nor any other 
person has a right or a claim to another's organs, alive or dead.  Organs 
which are donated are *donated*.  They are not appropriated.  Noone has any
right to another person's organs except where the owner has granted that 
right.

>|> 	And I also wonder how many ER doctors may get into the habit of
>|> 	becomming somewhat, shall we say "laid back" about fighting to save
>|> 	someone's life when they know that Senator Joe Scumbag has very
>|> 	discretely offered 1.5 million dollars for a pair of new kidneys for
>|> 	their very sick daughter.  Can you say "pressure from your superiors"?
>
>Complete bullshit.  That doctor should go to jail and never get out.
>Is this happening with organ donors now?  

        It is tough to document the reasons a doctor failed to save someone'
s life, or anything in that vein.  Even where it is suspected it is 
virtually impossible to prove.  However, doctor's now often don't know 
whethera person is a donor or not when they are dealing with an emergency.  
Under a new "default" system where the persons' status is assumed to a 
donor, there question will be the other way around.

>That is a completely
>unsubstantiated assertion.

        Abuses of organ donation, harvesting, and allocation abound and have 
been documented in a great many cases in a great many places.  They happen, 
and they are a problem.

>|> 	I suppose this sounds a bit cynical, but nonetheless I am certain this
>|> 	would become quite a frequent occurrance.  When it comes to lives, 
>|> 	people will do almost anything and those of means will not hesitate
>|> 	to push evey button they can in order to get that which they want so
>|> 	badly. 
>
>Are you saying that a doctor will make no effort to save me if he knows
>that the paramedics found my driver's license and it said I was a donor?

        No, he's saying that it is possible that a doctor may make a snap 
decision that you can't be saved and not try, prefering to go ahead and take 
your organs for somebody who can be saved.  

>Does this happen all the time now?  

        I have no idea, but "all the time" is not the issue.  

>Do organ donors statistically have
>less of a chance to survive in an ER than non-donors?  

        It would only be important if *known* donors had a lower chance of 
survival than non-donors, and then situation is one where death is an 
immediate risk.  (Throw out all the scraped knees and such.)  Under this 
new "default" system whether or not you are a donor, the doctor is likely to 
assume you are a donor.

>Perhaps I will
>listen to your ranting when you demonstrate that this is the case.
>Hell, if this is true, I'll be screaming right along with you.

        The words "ranting" and "bullshit" do not indicate much of an
interest in reasonable dicussion of the issue.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7191 talk.politics.guns:25828