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 18:50:40 GMT

In article <merlyn.725260204@digibd>
merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:

>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
>>In article <merlyn.725235222@digibd>
>>merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy) writes:
>
>>>>>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.
>
>How should the body be disposed of?  Any method will run into objections
>from some people, whether you bury the body, cremate it, freeze it,

       My concern is not objections to the method of disposal, although
that's part of it, so much as possibility of abuse of this new "default."

>whatever.
>
>>The road on which organs can be taken without explicit permision of the
>>individual is a road I prefer not to embark down.
>
>Right now, bodies are buried without explicit permission of the individual;
>what is the distinction between the two?

       There is nothing in the burial of the individual that presents people
an incentive to abuse their wishes.  Nobody is going to go out of their
way to see to it that an unidentified body remains unidentified if they're
going to have to pay for it's disposal.  They *might* just do so if they
get to turn the organs over to a hospital where it might help others, or
even for a "finders fee."

>>>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.
>
>Why is it OK to make that particular decision?  Some people have religious
>objections to cremation.

        A decision must be made, and it should be one presenting the absolute
minimum possibility for abuse.

>
>....
>>>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 not seem like a great problem,
>>but it could be.
>
>Now here's a real difference, and I agree that 2 has more abuse potential
>than 1, but I don't think it's much different than, for example, some
>people's fears that being signed up as an organ donor means the doctors
>won't try very hard to save your life (since they'll get your organs if
>you die).  A known donor is *right now* in precisely the same situation as
>your more-abuse-potential case.

        Not precisely, and you again run into the fact that they knew what
they were getting into.  For the known organ donor, if they are saved there
is a good chance the doctor will be paid, and most doctors do still have a
personal interest in saving their patients.  The police and the morgues
are a little different.  If they take the time to really check into who
an undidentified corpse is, the organs are going to spoil, so you're
likely to see pressure to simply declare them unwanted so you can get the
organs, if for no other reason than to vindicate the new "policy" toward
organ donation.  These groups wouldn't be pushing for this if they didn't
think it would substantially increase the number of organs available.
       It also seemed to me they weren't just talking about unidentified
bodies, but anybody who hadn't specifically said "no."

>>>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?
>
>>        As I said before, cremate the body.  And if there is the possibility
>>of harvesting your organs, somebody *will* care.
>
>There have been cases of both unauthorized cremation and unauthorized organ
>removal (actually, corneas in the case I'm thinking of).

        So because it has happened we should make it more likely?  That doesn't
make a lot of sense.

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