From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 19:03:21 GMT

(Note, this has nothing to do with guns anymore, but my newsreader does not
allow me to set followups, and I don't know where these people are reading.)

In article <1hjpaoINNgmn@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>In a previous article, viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) says:
>
>>bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>>If, instead, you persist with steps like the one described,
>>>you will be perceived as attempting to blackmail the various state gov'ts,
>>>and I believe the most likely outcome will be that the state gov'ts (or the
>>>feds, if necessary) will legislate these conditional donor cards out of
>>>existence...if they in fact have any legal force under current law, which is
>>>dubious at best.
>>
>>	You mean, just like the Federal government blackmailed the states
>>into passing the helmet law in the first place?  If they do legislate the
>>conditional donor cards away, it's $5 to get a duplicate license, and I can
>>change my organ donor status then.
>
>You seem to have missed my main point, which is that by refusing to be a donor
>you are not hurting the people who passed the helmet law.  You think a given
>state legislature gives a good goddamn whether you sign a card or not?  No,
>you are only hurting innocent third parties, whose influence over that helmet
>law is minimal, and who may live in another state, or may  even already
>support your position.

        Not completely.  Legislators worry about political appearances
as well.  It doesn't sound like there are enough people involved to cause
a problem, but it is possible that given enough attention (and it won't
be, but that isn't the point) and enough participation things will change.
Unfortunately, it's likely to be of the variety: "These horrible people are
refusing to help others out of spite, let's make them!"

>As I also previously pointed out, you will never know
>the answers to these questions (nor will your estate) since the recipient's
>identity is protected.


> 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.

       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.

>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?

>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.

        (In order to make *some* referance to tpg) This sounds like a lot
of the gun control *compromises*, where what you're really getting is
the other side is deciding to "compromise" by not demanding as much from
you as they did previously.
        "We can't force you to donate, so we'll make it your responsibility
to tell us we can't."
        It would seem to *me* that if people not asking is the problem,
we should make an effort to ask, rather than pretending people belong to
the government unless they object.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7125 talk.politics.guns:25756 misc.legal:21794