From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:43:09 GMT

In article <1hodldINN50@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>In a previous article, pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) says:
>
>>In article <1hlvrpINNq6c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>>
>>> [ ... deleted ... ]
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>Read: Make it very difficult to NOT donate, by having default action unless
>>one searches high and low to give the STATE the rights to your parts as
>>desired...  One would have to have their wish not to donate tatooed on their
>>forehead to have any assurance of compliance... even then, the doc might
>>have selective visual difficulties...
>>
>Now you are dreaming up things to worry about.  It is extremely rare that
>the doctor taking care of the potential donor is also the doctor waiting for
>an organ for a potential recipient.  In those rare instances where that is the
>case, a third physician reviews the potential donor to insure that he is really
>dead and that the donation canproceed.

This is irrelivant.  Neither the state, nor the end recipient has any right 
to that which is mine unless _I_ consent to it, be it my money, my goods, or 
my body parts.

>
>>>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.
>>
>>You seem to almost be saying that because a dead person has no rights,
>>the living person has default ownership of what the dead person has to
>>harvest, if the parts 'fit' via the STATE and the medical God committees.
>>If that is indeed the law of the land, it would suggest that the wishes
>>of the person who died are to be ignored (because the person no longer
>>has any rights) if it is for the 'Greater Good(tm)'.  If it is up to
>>the persons estate, this would suggest that those without relatives or
>>bux to have lawyers create a document that would not be checked upon
>>till its too late, have no realistic avenue to withold their parts for
>>WHATEVER reason.  Perhaps it is some religeous belief that they won't
>>go to paradise if they are carved up to pieces.  Such a basis for
>>overriding a person's wishes, or making it very easy to 'accidentally'
>>override them (just don't check TOO hard before carving them up).  That
>>would tend to dovetail with the overall philosophy of areas with lots
>>of paternalistic laws such as gun bans, safety this or safety that
>>required, or we will kill you, etc. (one's safety is really enhanced
>>when tossed in the jug, with the promise of up to deadly force if one
>>doesn't come along like a good boy...), right? And even then I suppose
>>the knife wielders would say 'Golly-Darn. I didn't see the notice ...
>>oh, well...'
>>
>See above; you are in a tizzy about nothing, since an objective third party
>doublechecks the case when there is a potential conflict of interest.
>And you are imagining that the process of withholding consent would be
>far more difficult than there is any reason for it to be.

This will depend entirely in whose interest it is to make organ-witholding 
mreo difficult:  the fossils in congress who are going to need spare parts 
soon, or the voters who keep them in thier phoney-baloney jobs.  ANYTHING 
that gives the state more power over the individual is a BAD IDEA.

>
>>Sure seems to be a tendency to say 'because I think this is a good idea,
>>I wanna make it default for everyone, regardless of their beliefs'.
>>What ever happened to leaving it to the PERSON to decide what is done
>>with their carcass, rather than the STATE?  *THAT* should be the default.
>>One should not be required to go thru a bureaucratic mill to be LEFT
>>ALONE. (I know, a very unfashionable viewpoint these 'enlightened' days.)
>>
>Again, this "bureaucratic mill" exists mostly in your own imagination.

Again, for now.  Name one government agency that has not gotten harder to 
deal with after it's inception.

>
>>It also makes one wonder if a person was KNOWN to be a donor, and a part
>>is KNOWN to be needed close by NOW, if that declaration of being 'really
>>dead, dead' would be made a bit sooner than it would be otherwise.  I
>>really doubt if it would ever get out of the operating/carving room,
>>but I do wonder if one has ever had the docs start carving on them, only
>>to find that they aren't quite as dead as they thought (perhaps via a
>>last gasp as the cut out the heart...)  Yeh, I know its a very low
>>probability, but is it ZERO?  And would one's soceo-economic status have
>>any effect on the determination (is joe nobody carved up a bit quicker
>>than Mr Big Shot, who isn't declared dead till rigor mortis sets in?)
>>
>I suppose it has happened from time to time that a mistke has been made...
>but I seriously doubt that it has cost more lives than it has saved.

You have just said that by using this new harvester, although we waste a few 
potatoes here and there, because we get to all of the potatoes before they 
spoil, overall we are better off.

Men are not potatoes.  The value of one life has the same value as two, or a 
dozen others.  You can't play number games with lives.  The choice MUST be 
up to the individual, not the state.

>
>>Just some distressing thoughts about this eagerness to glom onto someone
>>else's parts almost before they have stopped breathing...
>>
>>Maybe THAT is why so many groups wanna ban guns except for criminals and
>>cops - more parts in the parts bin courtesy unarmed victims ...  :-)
>>
>><couldn't resist...>
>>
>That's too bad, as it is an exceptionally stupid comment.

Not at all.  Joke in bad taste perhaps, but not stupid by any means.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns