From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 31 Dec 1992 06:49:38 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, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) says:

>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:
>
>>Everyone should be a donor.
>
>	And how, pray tell, do you come to this conclusion?  Should we all
>	become Jews?  Catholics?  Homosexuals?  Missionaries?  Satanists?
>	I believe it is somewhat uncircumspect of you (or anyone else)	
>	to make statements that so carelessly smack of mandate.  
>
This is a bit of a red herring, isn't it?  The importance of religious 
freedom is one of the reasons people should still be allowed to say no.
Hmmm...that sounds like I mean you have to state a reason to refuse, but I do
not.  The right of refusal should be unconditional, but the importance of
religious freedom is one of the reasons why the right of refusal should be
retained.
>
>>It shouldn't even be a question.  Why should your dead body have rights
>>over it's organs?  Should your dead body still be considered a person
>>according to the law?  What utter bullshit!
>
>	What an utterly narrow view of things.  Your words imply that your 
>	view is "right" and that all others are "wrong".  Talk about utter
>	bullshit.
>
>	And regarding denial of a donation to a given person, I have no
>	problem with that either.  Let's say I'm one o' dem po' stupid
>	niggerz.  Why should I donate my organs to, say, a KKK member or a skin
>	head that would just as soon turn around and kill my kin?  I might
>	rather see that bastard die than to give them a second chance to
>	do me or mine some serious harm.  I see no obligation whatsoever to
>	offer my organs unconditionally to one and all.
>
A most selfish, immoral and narrow view of humanity, imho.  Also illegal in
this country...you may not designate which person or class of persons your
organs will go to once you are dead.
>
>>|> 	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?  That is a completely
>>unsubstantiated assertion.
>
>	I never said it was substantiated.  But likewise I can say that
>	just because it has not been substantiated that it necessarily follows
>	that it does not happen.  Such an act would be VERY hard to prove
>	short of a full confession on the part of those involved..
>
It is also extremely rare...in fact, I don't know of a case, and I work
in this field.  Given the high emotions this topic carries, I would think
it would have come up by now if it was widesxpread.  And it wouldn't be
that hard to prove.

As for substantiation...you are the proponent of this idea.  It is up to you
to prove that it is something to worry about.
>
>
>>|> 	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, certainly not, but if I were looking REAL bad and might likely
>	die in any event, a sufficiently motivated doctor might choose to
>	"give up" on such a case earlier than if such pressures were absent.
>
>	The senior administration persons might smile VERY kindly upon the
>	doctor that  secured the organs for Sen. Joe Scumbag's daughter,
>	thr reception of which would get that juicy million dollar donation
>	to help build that new wing or trauma unit.
>
This is utter nonsense.  No one would know in advance who the recipient(s)
would be, and the doning hospital would not know even after the fact, as the
recipient's identity is protected by law.  And Senator Scumbag can't find
out who the donor was, for the same reason...plus this donation comes
perilously close to a de facto purchase of a human organ...which is also illegal.
>
>	Reports regarding the condition of the patient at time of death can be
>	artfully written to make all appear rosy and proper.  The doctor used
>	his expert professional judgement and decided that it was time to
>	cease treatment.  
>
Except that the note then has to be reviewed by the staff physician, and will
be seen by the nursing staff as well as Quality Assurance.  It will also be
shown to the patient's family upo request.  Nor is it that easy to write
a death note which is both false to fact and consistent with the patient's
treatment history...in part because that doctor who pronounced the patient
dead is only one of a number of people who wrote notes in the chart, and
if those notes don't all add up, someone *will* look into it.
>
>>Does this happen all the time now?  Do organ donors statistically have
>>less of a chance to survive in an ER than non-donors?  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.
>
>	I don't say that it *is* happening all the time, but rather that
>	I see it as a distinct possibility.  I can also see the mindset
>	slowly shifting from one of donation to one of OBLIGATION.  If *that*
>	does not at least give you reason for pause, then I don't knw what
>	to tell you.
>
It does not give me reason for pause because I know enough about medical
practice to realize how far-fetched and fanciful this all is.
>
>	-Andy V.
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
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:7097 talk.politics.guns:25735 misc.legal:21770