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 07:06:54 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, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) says:

>noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>
>>How can anyone sit here and say, "I don't want so-and-so to have my
>>organs because I don't agree with his political views."  I am personally
>>disgusted that someone could have the potential to be so selfish to not
>>share something of which they have no need.  Everyone should be a donor.
>>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!
>
>	Quite.  In fact, why should your live body have rights over your
>organs?  There are quite a few people on dialysis, and you most likely
>have two functions kidneys.  You really only need one, you know...  How
>about that bone marrow you'll regenerate, but the leukemia patient needs?
>Never mind all that plasma and those platelets you can simply make more
>of, but which others may desperately need.  Understand? 
>
I dunno.  Do you understand the difference between a live human being and
a dead one?
>
 Where does it
>stop, or will it ever stop?  Frankly, I *like* having my organs and
>bodily fluids right where they belong, and I'm just vindictive enough to
>think *not* donating to somebody in need may be filed under "civic
>improvement" rather than "selfish action." 
>
No, your first description was correct:  It is vindictive.  It is *not* a
"civic improvement".
>
 Would you give Idi Amin a
>new liver if you were dying? 
>
Yes.
>
 As for my dead body being a person, do you
>agree that a coroner or mortician should be allowed to remove any
>precious metals from the slab of meat on the table?  A few gold fillings,
>perhaps some silver dentures, and another kid gets through college
>instead of a life spent in the graveyard digging.  Ludicrous enough
>for you?  Then tell me why it is against the law?  Obviously, somebody
>thought it worth passing a law against, so maybe there is a reason?
>
The things you mention all have intrinsic value, and you are also referring
to items taken for the personal benefit of the taker.  This is not the
case with organ donation.  Furthermore (takes a deep breath):  "You can
still say no!"
> 
>>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.
>
>	Is it happening now?  I don't know.  Funny how illegal activities
>are not easily tabulated.  On the other hand, common triage may dictate
>one loses a leg while another stays alive.  Whether the person being an
>organ donor is factored into the triage ranking is up to the person
>doing the ranking.  I like to think it won't make any difference.  Still,
>who is to judge if my body parts are to remain with me, and shouldn't they
>have the decency to ask me or my heirs?  I think this is really all we're
>after here -- common respect for personal property from the government.
>
And you have that:  If you make the absolutely minimal effort to say "no",
that wish will be respected.
>
>< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
><  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
><  "Are you *SURE* he's worth a Harley-Davidson?" -- my grandmother  >
>< to my girlfriend, about me.  "I'd better not say" -- my girlfriend >
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty