From: ARCHER@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 15:28:08 GMT

In article <1hocmsINNsq8@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>In a previous article, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:
>>In article <1hlvrpINNq6c@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (
Brandon D. Ray) writes:>>
>>>In a previous article, PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:
>>>>> Any attempt to mandate organ donorship
>>>>>>is easily an infringement upon my right to privacy, and I doubt any court
>>>>>>would upload such a law.  Actually, stating what States may not have my
>>>>>>organs and then having the federal government over-rule me may be an
>>>>>>infringement of my rights already, but I'll let the legal scholars ponder
>>>>>>that a bit.  All I want to do is put on the leathers and helmet and ride
>>>>>>this spring without Big Brother telling me I *have* to.
>>>>
>>>>>And, as I also previously pointed out, corpses do not have civil rights.

"Corpses," or "dead people?"  While I will go so far as to day that a corpse 
is not a person, a person remains a legal entity, whether dead or alive.  If 
I am to be tried posthumously for a crime, I have a right to an attourney to 
defend me, as all that I have accomplished in my life can be shadowed by a 
posthumous conviction for a crime I didn't commit.

>>>>
>>>>       That's cute.  I think I'll file that in the same folder as the
>>>>phrase "Metabolically challenged."  *I* have rights, and disposal of
>>>>*my* body would seem to be one of them.
>>>>
>>>Sorry; you are mistaken.  Your corpse is technically the property of your
>>>estate, which means that in your last will and testament you have a certain
>>>amount of freedom over its disposition.  However, your options are severely
>>>circumscribed.  If your wishes were violated, the cause of action would lie
>>>with your heirs, not with you.
>>
>>       I thought that's what I said.
>>
>>       However, it would seem to me that upon my death, my body would no more
>>revert to the state, to this communitarian group, or to a hospital than
>>would any lamp, chair, or other piece of property that was mine in life.
>>
>The obvious answer to this is that your organs have no intrinsic value to
>your heirs or your estate, while the other items you mention do.  

Your opinion.  Likewise, your opinion may state that my unpublished poetry 
has no intrinsic value.  And you would be right, TO YOU.  My organs have 
intrinsic value to me, and they should not revert to the state anymore than 
my ideas or my "real" property.

>However,
>for the 50th or so time, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL SAID YOU CAN SAY "NO"!

You shouldn't have to actively say no to the state taking possession of what 
is yours.  The default should be the other way:  the state can't have it 
unless you say "yes."  They can ask, beg, plead, and cajole, it's fine with 
me, but they have no business mandating.

>
>>>>>However, this is also a bit off the point.  The original post said that
>>>>>the proposed change was that the *default* situation was that organ
>>>>>donation was permitted.  You could still carrY a card  explicitly
>>>>>withholding consent.
>>>>
>>>>        So it becomes "We will harvest your organs if you do not search
>>>>high and low for the office where you can get a card from us that says
>>>>we won't be able to take your organs to help all these innocent people,
>>>>you evil greedy person, you."
>>>>        Or do you think once they've got the rights to your organs they'll
>>>>put too much effort into helping you take them back?
>>
>>>You make the process sound pretty ugly, 
>>

The process IS ugly.  ANYTHING that gives power to the government and takes 
it from the individual is ugly.

>>        It is a pretty ugly thing to place the burdon of telling others that
>>your body does not belong to them on somebody.  And it has the possibility
>>of becoming even uglier.
>>
>>>but why do you assume that it would be
>>>any more difficult to get an organ-non-donor card than it is to obtain a
>>>durable power of attorney or an advanced medical directive?
>>

These devices cost money, and are only available to people who plan ahead. I 
resent the idea that I must plan ahead to keep the government from 
harvesting me for my organs and that I must spend money to do so.

>>        In the first place, getting a durable power of attorney or an
>>advanced medical directive is a pain, and most difficult when somebody 
>>doesn't know how.  In the second, the people all of a sudden in charge of 
>>these non-donor cards would all of a sudden have an incentive to *make*
>>it difficult, because the easier it is, the less organs there would be to 
>>donate.
>
>That sounds pretty paranoid to me.  

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that everyone ISN'T out to get 
you.  I know Mr. Veal personally, and he was accused of being paraniod when 
he claimed that the government would use gun registration in NYC and 
Washington DC (tax town) to enact a confiscatory ban.  I trust his instincts.

>It is not as if it costs you anything
>to donate your organs.  But even so, you can say "no".

You shouldn't HAVE to say no, THEY should have to aquire a "yes" from you or 
your family.

>
>>        Or do you *really* think all it would take is writing "I'm not an 
>>organ donor" on a piece of paper and carrying it around with you?  Given the 
>>legislative impulse of our government, *I'm* not all that confident that any 
>>group who wants to lay claim to *my* body parts will stop with round one.
>>
>Actually, I do expect it to be as simple as that.  There is no reason in the
>world for it to be any more complicated.

Until the old farts in congress start needing more spare parts to keep 
getting re-elected and start adding hoops to jump through.  Like everyone 
else, they have a vested interest in an ever-expanding pool of donor organs, 
most likely to be harvested from the poor who cannot afford the legal 
counsel to warn them, or the uneducated who do not know what will be done to 
them.

>
>>>>>I think that is a reasonable compromise, given that
>>>>>the vast majority of people state in surveys that they would have donated
>>>>>Uncle Ralph's kidneys, if only someone had asked them.

Then, big surprise, someone SHOULD have asked them.  The burden should not 
be on the citizen to keep his person intact, but on the govnernment to LEAVE 
HIM ALONE unless it has permission.

>>>winds up being one of several things the doctor or a nurse covers as they 
go>>>hurriedly down a checklist of Things to Do When Someone Dies.  The 
situation>>>is not very satisfactory for patients, their families or the 
medical staff,>>>nor is this time a good time for delicate questions and 
discussions.>>
>>        Oh, I see.  The hospitals get to lay claim to my organs becuase it's
>>too much trouble, and too sensitive a subject, to *ask* my family.  I
>>gush sympathy.
>>        And I'm curious why they didn't just require this question at 
>>another, less sensitive time.  Perhaps because it might have worked, and
>>not given a good excuse to lay claim to my organs?
>>
>No, the reason is that it is not something most people wish to think about
>Dying is a very sensitive topic in this country; you may have noticed.  Also,
>under the law it is required to confirm permission from the next of kin
>after death.  As I have already pointed out, this is the worst possible
>time to ask someone to make a complex, emotional decision.  You can throw
>all the petty sarcasm at that you want, but it is true.

Tough.  If the questions are too tough for people to answer, how do you 
think they are going to feel after being told that their wife or child has 
been chopped up for the benefit of the hospital and state?  Or weren't you 
planning to tell them?   After all, you can clean out the entire abdominal 
cavity, stitch it up, and tell them that is an autopsy incision.

>
>>>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...
>>
>>         There are a lot of things one group of people doesn't think it is 
>>unreasonable to ask another group of people.  The Christian Fundamentalisits
>>don't think it's unreasonable to ask everyone to live according to their 
>>narrow view of the world.  The socialists don't think it's unreasonable to 
>>ask everyone to live in *their* narrow view of the world. 
>
>I am not asking you to live according to my view of the world.  I *am*
>asking you to sign one friggin piece of paper if you don't want this done.
>Given the strength of your feelings on the issue, that should not be that
>much of a problem.

Actually, I am an organ donor.  I feel very strongly about the subject, but 
I feel even stronger about keeping the government away from me as much as 
possible.

First, it will NOT remain that simple.  NOTHING the government gets involved 
in ever does.  How do you think that beaurocracies justify thier ever-
expanding budgets?  They get bigger.  Besides, the default should be that 
the government DOESN'T have the power to violate your body unless you give 
permission.  The entire doctrine of "implied consent" stinks to high heaven.

>
>>         But so what?  You "minimal" effort still requires me to go out of 
>>the way to prevent others from taking what is mine, or what is my heir's.  
>>It would be entertaining to require that people get a card for every piece 
>>of property they own to prevent it "reverting" to government control once 
>>they died.  Why then are our bodies, arguably the one things above all 
>>others that is ours, is so different?
>>
>As noted above, there is no intrinsic value to your organs.  Your estate and
>your heirs lose nothing if they are taken and used to save the life of another
>person.  However, YOU CAN STILL SAY NO!

No.  _I_ place an intrinsic value on my body, and it does have a market 
value.  In the medical field, for reasarch and educational purposes, 
cadavers can be purchased.  There is also, like it or not, a black market 
for organs that makes me worth a fortune, should my heirs choose to exloit 
it.  More importantly MANY people are not organ donors for religious 
reasons.  By requiring a non-donor card, which may be ignored by "accident," 
you, in effect, requiring state permission to practice your religious 
beliefs.  

However, I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO _SAY_ NO!  (See, my shift key works too.)

>
>>>given the fact that the vast majority of your fellow citizens
>>>indicate that they *do* wish to donate.  
>>
>>         Awww, they wish to donate, but just don't understand how.  They 
>>wish to donate but just haven't been asked.  They wish to donate but it's
>>just to much trouble.  My heart bleeds for the poor, lazy people who would
>>donate if only someone came to their door with a donor card on a silver 
>>platter.
>>         Explain to me how their laziness makes it right to harvest my 
>>organs unless I jump through the proper legal rings to stop them?  (And
>>I will.  By god, I will.  I'm happy to donate when it's my choice.)
>>
>I have already explained it:  The donation costs you *nothing*.  And, as noted,

Yes, the donation costs *nothing*, to you.  For some people, it can cost 
them the afterlife.  And refusal to donate WILL accumulate costs.

>the "rings" are very few, and are large enough to drive a truck through.

Once you consent to jump through the ringmaster's hoops, they will get 
smaller, and higher.  Ask any trained animal.  I am not a circus animal, and 
I will not become one without a fight.

>
>>>But I would never dream of requiring
>>>anyone to donate who did not wish to do so.
>>
>>         Consider this.  If people are willing to donate, but just don't 
>>becuase "nobody has asked," or "it's too difficult" how is it, then, 
>>different for those who *don't* want to donate, but now for them nobody
>>is asking them if they don't want to donate, or that it's too difficult?
>>         Why is it ok, then, to change the rules to hurt them?
>>
>It hurts nobody.  Presumably those few people who are dead set against
>donating feel more strongly on the issue than do people who wish to donate...
>thus, they are more likely to go to the extremely small effort needed to
>withhold consent.

This is irrelivant.  You should not have to stop the government from doing 
something to you that you do not want done.  If you want the government to 
do something to you, you should have to ask.  (Though nothing precludes them 
from offering.)

>
>>>The discussion is not at all parallel to the gun control arguments since, as
>>>previously noted, dead people do not have civil rights.  
>>
>>         Neither do guns.  Perhaps they will just "arrest" my body for
>>"pollution violations."  My body, like my other posessions, should become 
>>the property of my heirs, who, in the absence of any orders on my part, may 
>>decide the disposition of, just the same as if I left them a gun.  Because 
>>my body *is* a body does not grant the government greater claim.  Something, 
>>just because it has no civil rights, does not automatically become the 
>>property of the government.
>>
>And, as noted, your body has no intrinsic value, nor can your heirs use it
>to defend their home.  You are comparing apples and oranges.

And, as noted, my body has intrinsic value to me, my heirs, and maybe to God.

>
>>>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.
>>

Wait a minute:  when did ANYONE aquire the RIGHT to my damn organs.  I 
thought we were talking about donations here.

>>         Whether or not the dead body has civil rights is completely and 
>>totally irrelevent.  The absence or existance of rights changes not one iota 
>>whether the government can lay claim to the physical posession of 
>>something.  My car has no civil rights, but that doesn't mean I have to get 
>>an attorney and sign special papers to prevent the government from randomly 
>>coming to take posession of it at some arbitrary point.  

Um.  Actually, they can.  Check the War on Drugs seizure laws.  And you CAN'
T stop them with any amount of paper work.  You have to sue to get your 
property back.  THIS is the logic you want applied to mandatory organ 
donorship?

>If a body has no 
>>civil rights, and it is just another piece of meat, then it becomes the 
>>posession of a person's heirs, no more the property of the government than 
>>anything else.
>>         And whatever "rights" a living person may have, they do not 
>>include entitlement to any other person's organs, any more than they may 
>>demand any other piece of property.
>
>Take a valium.
>
Mr. Veal doesn't take drugs of any kind without the immediate insistence of 
a practicing physician.  He likes to keep his wits about him.  Keeps him 
from being "harvested."

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Vote Dempublican, it's easier than thinking.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns