From: rubis@gagme.chi.il.us (Dave Svoboda)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Originator: rubis@gagme
Organization: Gagme Public Access UNIX, Chicago, Illinois.
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 02:59:50 GMT

In article <1hlvrpINNq6c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
|>
|>       That's cute.  I think I'll file that in the same folder as the
|>phrase "Metabolically challenged."  *I* have rights, and disposal of
|>*my* body would seem to be one of them.
|>
|Sorry; you are mistaken.  Your corpse is technically the property of your
|estate, which means that in your last will and testament you have a certain
|amount of freedom over its disposition.  However, your options are severely
|circumscribed.  If your wishes were violated, the cause of action would lie
|with your heirs, not with you.

Okay, fine.  The heirs have recourse.  But the fact remains that you have
a right to determine the dispostion of your own corpse.  The right exists.
Keep that in mind, I'm building on something.

|Well, this has been done.  Most if not all states have "required request"
|legislation, which means that whenever a patient dies in a hospital the
|hospital is required to request organ donation.  Unfortunately, most hospitals
|have neither the time nor the properly trained staff to do this...it usually
|winds up being one of several things the doctor or a nurse covers as they go
|hurriedly down a checklist of Things to Do When Someone Dies.  The situation
|is not very satisfactory for patients, their families or the medical staff,
|nor is this time a good time for delicate questions and discussions.

No, it isn't.  But the fact stands that someone must be asked before a corpse
is harvested for organs.  You seemingly would change that situation.

|Yes, we won't force you to donate, but I feel it is not unreasonable to ask you
|to make an absolutely minimal effort to notify us that you do not wish to 
|donate...given the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens
|indicate that they *do* wish to donate.  But I would never dream of requiring
|anyone to donate who did not wish to do so.

Why should *I* make a minimal effort?  It is MY organs we are talking 
about.  If you (society) wants them, they can damn well ask me (nicely) 
for them.  I object strongly if I am never asked, however.

And this is the second time I have seen you write that the "majority" of
citizens want to donate.  I will ask you to cite your references, there,
please.  If you state a statistical figure like that, I expect you to
back it up.

|The discussion is not at all parallel to the gun control arguments since, as
|previously noted, dead people do not have civil rights.  And you can sneer at
|that all you want but 1.) it is true and 2.) I have yet to hear from you (or
|anyone) a valid reason why a dead person's "rights" should override those of
|a living person.

And here we come to the point to which I was referring above.  What exactly 
are the rights, here?  Well, we have established that the owner of the organs
in question has a right to them.  You are saying that that right is
subordinate to those of the person who needs the organ.  But what right does
that person have?  None, I say.  Organ donation is just that; *donation*.
The recipient of a donation has no *right* to the donation.  He has a need,
but not a right.  If you establish that a needing person has a right to
the charity, then it's no longer charity.

So therefore the rights of the estate clearly override the lack of rights of
the sick but living person.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns