HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 07:30:40 GMT

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.

	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.

	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                    >

Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: jgd@dixie.com (John De Armond)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 93 18:54:31 GMT
Organization: Dixie Communications Public Access.  The Mouth of the South.

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>It is also extremely rare...in fact, I don't know of a case, and I work
>in this field.  

So we all know you work in the field.  Probably as an orderly.  You MUST
work in a job that keeps you away from medical issues or else
your position would not be so naive.  I know it's the party line that
the medical community will never, ever do any harm to a patient but it
just flat is not so.  Hell, all one would have to do is watch the Atlanta
news for the last year to know better than that.  The latest was 
the male nurse who was killing patients because he enjoyed doing 
Code Blues.

See I've "worked in the field" too but in a capacity that helped formulate
policy.  I sat for many years on my local hospital's Emergency Advisory
Board in my capacity as a health-physicist.  This board advised (and
effectively set policy) the administration on emergency room policies.
I dealt with nuclear emergencies but I listened with interest to 
everything.  I have little doubt that in the right social climate, 
consideration of organ harvesting could become a triage parameter.

This "gimmie, gimmie, gimmie, something for nothing" wellfare state
we've allowed to happen is quite conducive to such antics.

John
-- 
John De Armond, WD4OQC               |Interested in high performance mobility?  
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers? 
Marietta, Ga                         | Send ur snail-mail address to 
jgd@dixie.com                        | perform@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta?  Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns,misc.legal
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 06:29:15 GMT

gray@hawkmoon.mn.org (Bill Gray) writes:

>Somehow, a thread got started in t.p.g about restricting one's organs
>for donation after one's death.  Specifically, some writers do not wnat
>their organs used in states that have mandatory helmet laws, and have
>begun carrying cards to that effect.

	I started the thread, under the guise of making the argument more
obscure.  To wit, the government already takes many of our rights since
the somehow might benefit the rest of society.  I see gun-control laws
in this light, and sought to provide another example where Federal
lawmakers were trampling our rights without cause or justification.

	As a side note, my license no longer carries the organ donor
checkmark, and my lawyer, heirs, and congressman have been told the
reason I am no longer an organ donor.  I fully expect the AMA and
other medical associations to put more pressure on the federal and
state governments than us motorcyclists could ever hope to, and thus
once again make wearing a helmet my choice, just as it is today

	FYI: I always wear a helmet, and always will do so.  I am just
against Big Brother saying i *MUST* do so under penalty of law.  This
strikes me as a law without convincing Constitutional backing, and one
which has no business being made, let alone enforced, just as most
anti-gun laws promoted by the Fed are.

	Fight for a right?  Why not fight for all of them?

< 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 >
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: froh@boi.hp.com (Robert Frohwerk)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 15:34:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

Oh, how different the world would be if 
Elvis and Jim Morrison had been organ donors.  :-)

(Just another aside in this too long drift.)

Bob
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Ideology Busters, Inc.
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 03:31:17 GMT

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

It makes sense by putting some pressure on people in states with mandatory
helmet laws to work towards eliminating those laws.  I would add to a
donor card [if I didn't have other plans for my corpse] that the organs
could not be implanted in someone who lived in a state with restrictive
gun laws.  I know one person who has "... only to be used for any child
or any libertarian"
-- 
Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us (James Collins)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Quake Public Access, Sylmar CA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:43:56 GMT

bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

> 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!"

Hmm, sorta reminds me of the rape issue, and with a dreadful allusion I 
know, why should we have to say "no" in order not to get screwed?  
Shouldn't we have to say yes? 



---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Collins                        | Tips to live by from Rodney King
hunter@quake.sylmar.ca.us            | and Reginald Denny...
james.collins%bbs@quake.sylmar.ca.us | STAY... IN... THE... CAR...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7054 talk.politics.guns:25693
From: jkreznar@ininx.UUCP (John E. Kreznar)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 25 Dec 92 07:39:44 GMT
Followup-To: alt.society.civil-liberty
Organization: Independence Industries, Los Angeles

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

> 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.

One does not hurt another by simply refusing to help the other.  One
_does_ hurt another by acting to interfere with the other's freedom,
as when one advocates a helmet statute.

To hurt means to cause pain.  Advocacy can be causative.  Forbearance
cannot.

Focus on the legislator draws attention away from the true villains
here.  The legislator would be impotent if it weren't for the legions
of statists who empower him at the polls.

 |  Voting in government elections, or petitioning government, or willfully  |
 |  accepting government ``benefits'' when it's feasibly avoidable (thereby  |
 |  generating demand for taxation), accelerate the supplanting of personal  |
 |  choice by collective dictate,  making these most serious crimes against  |
 |  humanity.  ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar  |
-- 
        Relations among people to be by mutual consent, or not at all.
         ---John E. Kreznar, jkreznar@ininx.com, uunet!ininx!jkreznar
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty
From: eeb1@quads.uchicago.edu (e elizabeth bartley)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Reply-To: eeb1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 00:11:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.203126.21825@newstand.syr.edu>
greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield) writes:

>Well, I'll need some more convincing that this is a terrible thing.  I'm a
>little iffy on the idea that one has too many rights after they are dead.

No, but I think I have a right *now* while I'm alive what's to be done
with my cadaver once I'm dead.  Since I'm not repulsed by the idea of
my body being carved apart once I'm no longer in it and I don't have
any religious beliefs requiring my corpse, I've chosen to donate my
organs.  But NO ONE has a right to tell me I must.

>In any case, this proposal doesn't really remove anyone's rights.  It just
>changes the default when one doesn't specify how they want things to be
>done after they are dead.

Can't you see the vested interest here in not finding out that the
person didn't want his organs used?  Can't you see the vested interest
here in making it difficult to properly say that I want my corpse in
one piece?

>This strikes me as similar to changing the law regarding inheritance when
>someone dies intestate.

Yes -- similar to changing the law to say that when someone dies
intestate the state gets everything.

Gee, Harry remarried and didn't realize that made his old will
obsolete -- his wife and kids get nothing.  Gee, the state government
has decided that the will's invalid and they get everything.

>Considering that there is a rational purpose, and this *doesn't* revoke
>anybody's rights, I'm inclined to believe that the proposal is reasonable.

I think I have a right to not have to run around state offices getting
little pieces of paper in order to have what my religion demands be
done to my body after my death.

>So tell me why I should think otherwise.

Read Larry Niven.  He illustrates this slippery slope marvelously.  I
especially recommend "The Jigsaw Man", a brief short story of his.

-- 
E. Elizabeth Bartley           |        "This is a world of compensation; and
he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave.  Those who deny freedom
to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long
retain it."    - Abraham Lincoln
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,alt.true-crime,aus.politics
From: rns@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Robert Noel STURROCK)
Subject: Re: Rape After Rape After Rape
Organization: Computer Science, University of Melbourne, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 06:54:20 GMT

jp@ipac.caltech.edu (John Pipkins SSE SMCC) writes:

>In article <1992Dec18.005214.25192@cs.su.oz.au>, allanc@cs.su.oz.au (Restless Wanderer) writes:

>|> All wars are based on some stupid idea of religion.
>|> allanc
>|> 

>	Actually, economics are the bases of all wars.  Religion
>just get the fever up.

Agree.  In fact, religion is often used as a justification, helping to
obscure the real (economic) reasons.


rns
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 06:25:46 GMT

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?  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."  Would you give Idi Amin a
new liver if you were dying?  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?

>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.

< 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 >
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 23:37:29 GMT

In article <VEAL.589.725750942@utkvm1.utk.edu>, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:

|>         The words "ranting" and "bullshit" do not indicate much of an
|> interest in reasonable dicussion of the issue.

You are correct; my behaviour was uncalled for and purely emotional.
As I noted in another post, I was shocked by the seemingly cavalier
attitude towards life, and posted before I could calm down.

I formally apolgize.

|> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|> David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
|>                          Information Services Group
|> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)

Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
From: osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Twilight Zone
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 17:47:40 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.155304.16757@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
>to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
>get a license they ask you what donor status you want, and then the 
>license serves as a legal document.  (I have had a Uniform Donor
>Card in my wallet for almost 10 years, and I just checked and found
>that since my intent is on my driver's license that I no longer need
>carry the card.)

	This is fine Henry, as far as it goes, but what about the question
	of the default case when the person in question has no "findable"
	license?  If the default is this "implied consent" crap, then we are
	no better off.  Imagine a nice new fresh piece of meat, just about to
	expire, the organs of which are sorely needed...  "Uh, gee... we LOOKED
	for the  driver's license, but could not find it until several hours
	after the kidneys (or what have you) had been harvested.  Sorry"

	I can virtually guarantee you that shit like this will happen with
	increasing frequency until it becomes standard practice (de rigeur,
	if you will).  And the "but it saves so many lives"  BS will be
	very liberally and vigorously offered at each and every protestation.

	And I also wonder how many ER doctors may get into the habit of
	becomming somewhat, shall we say "laid back" about fighting to save
	someone's life when they know that Senator Joe Scumbag has very
	discretely offered 1.5 million dollars for a pair of new kidneys for
	their very sick daughter.  Can you say "pressure from your superiors"?

	I suppose this sounds a bit cynical, but nonetheless I am certain this
	would become quite a frequent occurrance.  When it comes to lives, 
	people will do almost anything and those of means will not hesitate
	to push evey button they can in order to get that which they want so
	badly. 

	-Andy V.
Xref: sparky alt.society.civil-liberty:7061 talk.politics.guns:25698
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 17:53:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, lvc@cbnews.cb.att.com (Larry Cipriani) says:

>In article <1hu3jkINNj7k@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>
>>It costs your estate nothing...not one plugged nickel...to give your
>>organs to another person or persons.
>
>This believe this is incorrect.  I have heard from my attorney that
>the estate of organ donors can be required to pay for the cost of
>organ harvesting.  If that's not true I would like to know it.
>
It is not true.  If you know of someone's estate who was charged for harvesting
his organs, this should be reported to the US Attorney's office, as the
practice is illegal.  These costs can only be charged to the recipient, not
to the donor.
>
>Larry Cipriani, att!cbvox1!lvc or lvc@cbvox1.att.com
>Judge and be prepared to be judged  -- Ayn Rand
>
"Judge not, that ye be not judged." -- Jesus Christ

-- 
******************************************************************************
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,talk.politics.guns
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 03:30:31 GMT

In article <168CD11F58.PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu> PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) writes:
:        It's a matter of action versus inaction.  It is reasonable and
:logical to operate under the assumption that while an action which
:brings about someone's death (the pulling of a trigger on a gun) is
:morally indefensible, that the withholding of action (refusing to
:come to someone's aid) is not.  The law, as a matter of fact, supports
:this position (not to say the law is a good measure of morality, but)
:and does not require you to go to someone's aid, even if they are in
:imminent danger.

Depends what country you're in.  Certainly in France, not going to
someone's aid when their life is in danger is a criminal offence.

G
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns