From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation (really default organ donation)
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 03:01:54 GMT

In article <merlyn.725235222@digibd>
merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <merlyn.725160859@digibd>
>>merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>>>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>>>In article <92358.114511DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
>
>>>Doesn't there have to be SOME default action?
>
>>        The default action on who gets my favorite lamp is my spouse or
>>my children.
>
>Yes, they get your body when you're dead, and if your spouse and/or children
>don't indicate what to do with your body, or they don't exists, then what
>is done with your body?

       My we're getting out on a limb to produce a situation where this
comes into play.

       We should dispose of the entire body without harvesting organs.
The road on which organs can be taken without explicit permision of the
individual is a road I prefer not to embark down.  It's easy to skip on
down the way.
       For instance, how much effort do you put into identifying a
jane/john doe?  And considering the demand for these organs, do you think
the amount of effort would increase or decrease?  Especially considering
the organs have a limited "shelf-life".

>>>ANY action, including doing nothing and leaving
>>>them lying around, is essentially making a decision for them.
>
>>         Doing nothing is just that, doing nothing.
>
>Dead people with no heirs and no after-death instructions can't be left lying
>around; what happens to them?

       We probably cremate them.  Any system which allows body parts to
be taken without the express premision of their owner (even if the owner
no longer has use for them) presents too great a possibility of abuse.

>What happens if heirs exist, but they don't
>give any indication of what should be done?  Any action is making a decision
>for them, whether it's burial or organ donation or cremation or whatever.

       Cremation is cheaper and doesn't take up real-estate.  I'd go with
that.

>>>What about people who think burying people is grotesque, but see nothing
>>>wrong with organ donation?  How is burying people any less a decision
>>>than organ donation?
>
>>         What does whether or not the option is grotesque have to do with
>>anything.
>
>You seem to be making an arbitrary distinction between:
>
>1) the state will bury you if you and/or your heirs give no indication of
>   what to do with your body when you die.
>
>2) the state will remove your organs if you and/or your heirs give no
>   indication of what to do with your body when you die.
>
>Most states do (1) or a variation (like cremation); how is (1) any more or
>less arbitrary than (2)?

        Neither is less arbitrary.  Number one presents little incentive
or opportunity for abuse.  Number 2 presents great possibility for
abuse.  Certain people all of a sudden have a stake in unidentified
bodies remaining unidentified.  That may noseem like a great problem,
but it could be.

>>The question is whether the government should, or should be
>>allowed to, make decisions about your body and require you jump up and
>>object if you don't like it.  (Which is what this group appears to
>>be suggesting.)
>
>RIGHT NOW, the government will DEFINITELY DO *SOMETHING* if you are dead.

        The government would do something regardless of what I do.  They're
like that.  Busy-bodies.

>You get to say (before you're dead, of course), your heirs get to say, but
>if NOBODY cares enough to indicate anything, there is still this dead body
>that someone has to do something with.  So what would you suggest be done?
>Nothing?

        As I said before, cremate the body.  And if there is the possibility
of harvesting your organs, somebody *will* care.  Perhaps enough to drop
by the police station and put some money under the table and quietly put
and end to inquires into who exactly such and such an unidentified body
is so that the organs can be quickly removed to someone "who needs them
more."

>>         The default is what I want to do with my body, and should remain so
>>until I can no longer make the decision.  After which point it should become
>>my family or heirs' decision.
>
>This is still how things work, but what is done if NONE of these people
>say what's to be done, and/or don't exist?

        A decision as to organ donation must be made quickly.  That's one
of the whole reasons behind the organ donars cards, so they can take organs
out immediately and not let them go bad once the body dies.  This does not
allow any attempt at going out and finding whether or not the deceased
had certain wishes, or his heirs did, or who he is, even, if he isn't
carrying identification.

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