From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 23 Dec 1992 22:51:05 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:

>cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
>
>> rlcarr@athena.mit.edu (Richard L. Carreiro) writes:
>>> [source _Boston Globe_, p. 17, 22 December 1992]
>>> The article goes on to talk about how the CN is pushing for legislation
>>> to create "implied consent" for organ donations; i.e. unless you say
>>> otherwise, you are presumed to want to be an organ donor.
>
>>> While encouraging organ donation is a noble goal, this, IMHO, goes too 
>>> far.  The whole idea that some hazy group ("soceity", "the people", etc)
>>> should have a claim on me solely on the grounds that I am a potential
>>> organ source is disgusting and repulsive.
>
>>What else can you expect from an instutition who routinely uses 
>>four-color presses, computers, photofax machines, and satellite 
>>communications to put together a newspaper which prints, under
>>the protection of the First Amendment:
>
>>"In the 18th century, when the Constitution was written, firearms
>> were expensive and difficult to reload. It is unlikely the 
>> Framers would have written the Second Amendment so loosely if
>> they had experience with the SKS."  (Thursday 12/17/92)
>>-- 
>
>	Want to make this argument more obscure?  Most motorcyclists
>I know of are organ donors, and most wear helmets.  However, any
>law that says they must wear a helmet is considered an infringement
>of personal rights.  Many have begun carrying cards saying that their
>organs may not be used in any state that has a mandatory helmet law.
>The AMedicalA, and a few others, went apeshit.  Too bad.
>
I'm sure this gives the holders of these donor cards a nice warm feeling, but
think of the actual consequences.  Do you actually hurt the people you want to
hurt...i.e. the legislators who passed the law you object to?  No.  You hurt
some individual, whom you will never know, who will die because your organs
were unavailable, since you got killed in a biking accident in a state with
laws that offend your ethical sensibilities.  Doesn't make sense to me.

I would propose a change in the law:  Since having a biker die in an 
accident inevitably causes some cost to the public (even if we leave your
remains to rot by the roadside, there is a public health risk), I propose
that any person killed in a biking accident while not wearing a helmet be
*required* to donate his organs.  This will help to defray the cost of
scooping up your body and disposing of it properly.

That is not a serious proposal, btw...it is a response in the same vein as
the conditional donor cards you mention.
>
>	Iowa will most likely be getting a helmet law in the near future.
>If it does arrive, I'll continue to wear my helmet.  I will no longer be
>an organ donor, however, and this has been sent to my state and federal
>reps.  I demand at least one million dollars per organ be sent to my
>heirs by the state and/or federal government should they be used in any
>state with a helmet law, and have forwarded this demand to both my lawyer
>and to my representatives, a few of whom are neighbors.
>
As your lawyer has no doubt advised you, this requirement is illegal, and
therefore void.  Federal law prohibits the buying and selling of human organs,
beyond whatever price is needed to defray the cost of harvesting the organs.
>
>	Take my rights?  Take my benefits too, pal.
>
>< 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.  >
><  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
><   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >
>
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
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.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7176 talk.politics.guns:25810