From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 01:50:46 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, rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) says:

>"People should come to see organ donation `as a social duty, as an act on
> behalf of our fellows and the community...that is to be routinely expected'
> and that would reduce `the wastage of a precious human resource,' said
> the Communitarian Network."
>[source _Boston Globe_, p. 17, 22 December 1992]
>
>The article goes on to talk about how the CN is pushing for legislation
>to create "implied consent" for organ donations; i.e. unless you say
>otherwise, you are presumed to want to be an organ donor.
>
>While encouraging organ donation is a noble goal, this, IMHO, goes too 
>far.  The whole idea that some hazy group ("soceity", "the people", etc)
>should have a claim on me solely on the grounds that I am a potential
>organ source is disgusting and repulsive.
>
>An all around "bleah!" on this one.
>--
>Rich Carreiro
>ARPA: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
>UUCP: ...!mit-eddie!mit-athena!rlcarr
>BITNET: rlcarr@athena.mit.edu
>
I think you may be over-reacting.  I assume that the article is talking about
organs from cadavers.  If that is the case, I can shed some light.  I have taken
a seminar or two on organ donation, and one thing that has been found is that
th vast majority (like, 80 or 90 percent) of people who have lost a loved
one state that they would have donated any or all organs if only someone had
asked, and that they assumed they were not asked because the organs are not
useful.  This is the reason we now have "required request" legislation in most
if not all states.  This requires the hospital to ask about organ donation
upon the death of a patient.

Now, I would also support moving to the implied consent situation you
describe, as I believe, based on these seminars and on the better part of
ten years spent working with terminal patients and recently bereaved
families, that most people would not object to this, but cannot bring themselves
to take the positive step of signing an organ donor card, because thinking
about dying is too difficult...and also because they lacked the 
opportunity to do so.

As for the civil rights aspect...once you are dead, I am not sure you have any 
civil rights.  nevertheless, I feel that allowing individuals to forbid
their organs to be harvested is an acceptable compromise.  Of course,
going to implied consent on this issue must be accompanied by apropriate
educaion to the public, so that people will understand what is being done
and why.  On the whole, though, it sounds like a positive step forward.


-- 
******************************************************************************
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:7175 talk.politics.guns:25809