From: merlyn@digibd.digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Mandatory Organ Donation (really default organ donation)
Organization: DigiBoard, Incorporated, Eden Prairie,MN
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 05:10:04 GMT

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,
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?

...
>>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.

...
>>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.

>>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).

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc