Make organ donation compulsory

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: JazzFunk If not seen from a religious perspective how else would compulsory organ donations effect the dead? what would a dead person or family have possible use for extra organs? Isn't it better to use something for good, then to let it rot to waste?

Yes, in my opinion, it is better. But...

Should there be legislation that will force everyone to do the "better" thing?

Who says what is "better?"

If I believe it would be better for your property to be under my control, is that a good enough reason for you to give it up? Or will you resist me?

How about if I have all the powers of the law and the justice system behind me?:eek:

[nilan3000]

Exactly, which is why I used the example earlier. Just because junk food is bad and banning junk food would be for the better good of mankind, do you think junk food should be banned? DO you think the people should be told what to eat and what no to eat?

What if you state in your will that you wish your organs to be kept intact inside your body? What happens then?

[JazzFunk]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Yes, in my opinion, it is better. But... Should there be legislation that will force everyone to do the "better" thing? Who says what is "better?" If I believe it would be better for your property to be under my control, is that a good enough reason for you to give it up? Or will you resist me? How about if I have all the powers of the law and the justice system behind me?:eek:

Well I would resist, but if I was dead I wouldn't. Property is a lot different to organs, property can be used by relatives, whereas organs cannot. I'm simply trying to understand what so wrong with hospitals taking what relatives cant use. Besides the persons body will be eaten by scavenger bacteria if not used anyway.

I can understand how people would prefer the option of donating instead of the government forcing people to do so after death. But there are just not enough people donating organs to meet the quota. Some people on the forums say it is a form of larceny, but isn't the outcome of saving someones life more important than stealing. For example, Martyrdom is sacrificing yourself for others or religion, so can you see how something as bad as suicide can be justified to save lives or promote religion even though suicide is regarded as immoral.

I'm not going to force my ideas upon you, I just want you to understand that many people are dying because people are refusing to donate organs voluntarily after death.

I guess you could view organs as garbage, why keep something you cant use? (sorry if this analogy offends anyone)

[JazzFunk]

Quote by: nilan3000 Exactly, which is why I used the example earlier. Just because junk food is bad and banning junk food would be for the better good of mankind, do you think junk food should be banned? DO you think the people should be told what to eat and what no to eat? What if you state in your will that you wish your organs to be kept intact inside your body? What happens then?

People have a choice whether or not to eat junk food, whereas people on waiting lists don't have any say in organ donation, and have to force themselves to die if there are no available organs in time. Yes and I agree that people should eat what they want, but do you agree that people should die needlessly because people wont donate organs after death voluntarily?

As for your last question, I think you already know the answer to the question.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pikatore said: I think your political views place too much of a bearing on how you see things.

Well, I am me. I see me in the mirror everyday, and I operate me, and my mind is what is responsible for my actions.

You have the gall to say I think about me too much, never asking if I signed up to donate organs, didn't you?

Well, up until my last license renewal, I was an organ donor. I took myself off the list after seeing how many idiots may be saved by my organs.

I am not going to be a "sheeple" enabler, period, and that seems to be the majority of what is being bred these days.

Regardless, I am just making the point that people that have ideas like yours, and push them into the politcal arena, are part of the problem in a society that is built on individual rights, like ours. Eventually, a large portion of individuals are going to get tired of tolerance, after watching 157 years of progression to failure by the "equally greater evils", and the bubble will burst yet again, since there are still morons trying to use force to enslave others "for their own good", breeding more violence.

Pikatore said: It's never about morals, economics, etc. It's always rights rights rights, and 'if you try to nick my things ill blow you away' ramble.

Thats incorrect. I often talk about economics.

It looks more like rights, rights, rights, economics, rights, rights.... etc.

Talking about morals is like talking about the color of a sofa cover. Opinions and attitudes, not much constructive, and completely subjective.

Pikatore said: For example. It's a person's 'right' to do whatever they want to thier own body, correct? So why are some substances banned then?

Maybe you missed my other 8000 posts on government corruption, and how to return it to Constitutionality again?

Pikatore said: Is it a gross violation of our rights?

Obviously.

Pikatore said: Or not so much? Is there a grey area with you?

Yes, and the grey area is between the ears of the jury.

I have a right to jury trial by my peers, and I have a right to be guaranteed by the system that a judge will properly inform the jury as to my rights. That isn't happening, hence the need for the Jury Nullification re-education movement.

As far as "regulating" dangerous substances, yes, I think there should be regulation of WMD, and substances that cause property damage outside the property they are being used of significant amount.

Nuclear weapons, yes, regulate them. They pose an OBVIOUS health risk to those outside the property where they are kept.

Caffeine, Sugar, Marijuana, and other drugs are NOT WMD, nor are they a risk to anyone who doesn't consume them.

To quote Patrick Henry, and a few others who saw things as I see them..... (the historical one, not on this forum)

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 5 1788

Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, speech of June 14, 1788

"The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.
-- "M.T. Cicero", in a newspaper letter of 1788 touching the "militia"
referred to in the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
-- Albert Gallatin, Oct 7 1789

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy



It is people with ideas like the one your supporting, that bring about these violent revolutions. Notions of direct democracy, and socialized medicine, and forced service to country, etc etc etc.

Recipes for war, thats what socialism and communism are.

[Osborn F Enready]

There is no such thing as "noble deeds" or "goodness" when you are forced to do it at the barrel of a gun.

[JazzFunk]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready There is no such thing as "noble deeds" or "goodness" when you are forced to do it at the barrel of a gun.

But if you choose to do the right thing or agree with virtuous acts, such as obeying and agreeing with the law is noble and good, is it not?

Once you die, you are not forced to do anything. You are free from the world, and by be being compliant to organ donation before death is charitable, even if it was compulsory (charity and obedience are virtues).

[Osborn F Enready]

JazzFunk said: But if you choose to do the right thing or agree with virtuous acts, such as obeying and agreeing with the law is noble and good, is it not?

No, and certainly not ALWAYS.

The law is only good if it empowers all. There are few laws passed in the last 100 years that meet that requirement. Some, yes, but very few.

Prohibition, if not tied DIRECTLY to rights violations, is authoritarian.

Law is 100% by nature, authoritarianism, because it IMPOSES force. The equal checks on that authority are the jury, the access to representatives, and equal access to offices of power. Those are all protected by the access to arms.

The only VALID use of force, is in defense.

Now do you see my connection between rights, law, government and the responsibility of the individual? Individual Arms play as key a role as any of the others, because they are THE last safeguard against tyranny.

JazzFunk said: Once you die, you are not forced to do anything.

Have you died and stayed dead? Hmmm, guess you really don't know that then do you? To speculate on the unknown with your life and property is your choice, as well as it is mine. I won't let anyone take that right from me, regardless of the pretty words they say, the fluffy reality replacement they offer, or the uniform they wear and big guns they carry.

Life without liberty is a prison sentence, not a gift or a valued possesion.

JazzFunk said: You are free from the world, and by be being compliant to organ donation before death is charitable, even if it was compulsory (charity and obedience are virtues).

I totally disagree, based on two facts.

Nobody KNOWS what is after death.(though many claim to because they let their subjective beliefs intrude on their natural reality)

And being forced to do anything, no matter what the action, is still slavery at the barrel of a gun. Only fools who believe in angels and devils, claim to NEED to do the deeds of devils to accomplish the work of angels.

[JazzFunk]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready No, and certainly not ALWAYS. The law is only good if it empowers all. There are few laws passed in the last 100 years that meet that requirement. Some, yes, but very few. Prohibition, if not tied DIRECTLY to rights violations, is authoritarian. Law is 100% by nature, authoritarianism, because it IMPOSES force. The equal checks on that authority are the jury, the access to representatives, and equal access to offices of power. Those are all protected by the access to arms. The only VALID use of force, is in defense. Now do you see my connection between rights, law, government and the responsibility of the individual? Individual Arms play as key a role as any of the others, because they are THE last safeguard against tyranny.

So if the law doesn't have the authority to control everyone, does that make it useless? Should we revert to Anarchism, just so we can all be "free"?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Have you died and stayed dead? Hmmm, guess you really don't know that then do you? To speculate on the unknown with your life and property is your choice, as well as it is mine. I won't let anyone take that right from me, regardless of the pretty words they say, the fluffy reality replacement they offer, or the uniform they wear and big guns they carry. Life without liberty is a prison sentence, not a gift or a valued possesion.

Well i thought my statement was pretty clear, how is it possible for anyone to force you to do anything when you are dead, you are not capable of responding (do i need to die and come back to life to tell you this).

How would your liberty be effected after death? the dead person is free from government law and authoritarianism, he exits the plains of life. Since the policy would only come into order after you die, how would it effect your current state of life?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I totally disagree, based on two facts. Nobody KNOWS what is after death.(though many claim to because they let their subjective beliefs intrude on their natural reality) And being forced to do anything, no matter what the action, is still slavery at the barrel of a gun. Only fools who believe in angels and devils, claim to NEED to do the deeds of devils to accomplish the work of angels.

Nobody is forced to do anything, everyone has the power to make there own decisions. Various people choose to abide the law for their own reasons. So by abiding the law now are we all just simply slaves?

Watch your tongue, Catholics and other religious groups believe in heaven and hell and to call them dumb is simply insulting and how is organ donation the work of evil?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Jazz Well I would resist, but if I was dead I wouldn't. Property is a lot different to organs, property can be used by relatives, whereas organs cannot. I'm simply trying to understand what so wrong with hospitals taking what relatives cant use.

This is the problem with your argument. Value is subjective and not limited to financial worth or what you define as usefulness. The deceased’s family may value an intact corpse greatly and find it very useful in dealing with their bereavement. Whether this is for religious or emotional reasons is irrelevant: you can’t say categorically that organs are of less value to the family than money. Property rights are every bit as applicable to organs as they are to money.

Hence, unless you support the government taking any and every type of property and putting it to public use when you deem the owner to be using it improperly, your argument is illogical and hypocritical.

Quote by: Jazz How would your liberty be effected after death? the dead person is free from government law and authoritarianism, he exits the plains of life. Since the policy would only come into order after you die, how would it effect your current state of life?

The deceased's family's property rights are being denied by seizing something left to them by their relative. Furthermore, living with the knowledge that you will have your organs removed upon death and therefore go to Hell in the afterlife is a pretty significant effect.

[Maybe-not]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready According to YOU. Your theory falls apart when you try to take MY property, because it would cause YOU to die, since I defend my property. See how it doesn't apply to reality? Why not cut out the middle man, and dedicate your organs now, before your rights violations force people to kill you? You have an unrealistic view of the natural world, and human nature. That is why communism and socialism fail. They are ignorant of factually obtainable trends, statistics and INFORMATION, because their "dictators" limit their ability to learn, and reason, via propaganda, using force.

Seriusly, if you are death, what gives you the right to own something? I mean, that is why we inherit stuff. Most corpses are burnt anyways, why not take the organs, and generate some electrisity from the heat of corpse burning?

Quote by: Osborn F Enready AS if it were fact..... I am non-religious, so for me, it is simply property rights at question.

Property in death? You mean like being burryed in a cadilac? I see no point in maintaining that kind of "rights". Why do dead people need stuff?

Quote by: PatrickHenry Hmm. What do you have that I may take from you? You should share, you know, otherwise you're just a selfish person who should be killed, then we'll harvest your organs...

We are talking about dead people. They don't need them, i live i do. You MUST be able to see some kind of difference?

Quote by: JazzFunk If not seen from a religious perspective how else would compulsory organ donations effect the dead? what would a dead person or family have possible use for extra organs? Isn't it better to use something for good, then to let it rot to waste?

I so agree. This is what i am trying to say.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Yes, in my opinion, it is better. But... Should there be legislation that will force everyone to do the "better" thing? Who says what is "better?" If I believe it would be better for your property to be under my control, is that a good enough reason for you to give it up? Or will you resist me? How about if I have all the powers of the law and the justice system behind me?:eek:

You seriusly don't see a differece? I mean, dead people don't need it, the living do. Should we not care most about the living? Or is this "The ansestors demand sacrifice" all over?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Maybe Seriusly, if you are death, what gives you the right to own something? I mean, that is why we inherit stuff.

Including organs. When someone dies, his corpse, including his organs, becomes the property of his family unless stated otherwise. How is this any different from inheritance of money or heirlooms?

Quote by: Maybe You seriusly don't see a differece? I mean, dead people don't need it, the living do. Should we not care most about the living?

The living includes the deceased's family to whom the organs were left. They may need the organs for emotional or religious reasons. You can't prove that the organs are of value only to the people in need of a transplant.

[pikatore]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You can't prove that the organs are of value only to the people in need of a transplant.

Well unless they want to store his organs in canopic jars for the afterlife, I think that it's safe to disregard thier rather irrational urge to keep his internal organs with them.

If somebody's religious beliefs prohibited birth by caesarian section, do you think that the person could still be considered rational if she would prefer to die than have her baby be born through her stomach?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore Well unless they want to store his organs in canopic jars for the afterlife, I think that it's safe to disregard thier rather irrational urge to keep his internal organs with them.

Rationality is not enforced by law. Religion is irrational but religious freedom is still guaranteed, and people are still free to use their property to serve that religion, i.e. church donations, without the government intervening and putting the money to a "more rational use".

Quote by: Pikatore If somebody's religious beliefs prohibited birth by caesarian section, do you think that the person could still be considered rational if she would prefer to die than have her baby be born through her stomach?

Red herring; let's stick to property rights.

[pikatore]

I'm not like those who purely look at something and declare it as someone's right or not.

I weigh the benefits it will place on society against the negative effects it will have, even if one of those negative effects is the limitation of a particular right (though it is usually a minor one). Its about the principle, on a place higher than people rights, but for the good of society. Our governments have already technically violated many of what we consider to be rights for the greater good, and that is how we should think. Is it for the greater good? Or do we want to get away with being selfish bastards (because no religion that I know of exclusively prohibits the donation of internal organs, so no religious discrimination there)?

For example, Microsoft origionally violated 'company competition' rules by having several programs (such as windows media player) incorporated into Windows XP, and also in the origional launch, deliberately coded XP so that Java enabled applications couldn't run on it. It's perfectly within the company's rights, I mean, if Sun, the company that created Java, wanted it to be used so much, why not make thier own operating system? Sun instead complained to the board, which, obviously against Microsoft's wishes, forced Microsoft to change thier OWN code to faciliate Sun's Java platform. That seems to be a completely, utterly, technical violation of property rights, right? Yet I don't see people lamenting in the streets about it. That's because some rights are more important than others, and people (even at times, unknowingly) have thier right's technically violated in some way or another, but don't give a damn, cause they are enjoying thier life.

This isn't just about property rights (which oddly enough raises questions about how the legalities lie with the family's intentions with the organs, since they now own them, compared to that dead person's intent), this is about comparing the greater good to anally rententive purist right-wing ideals. Only someone with blinkers on will keep rambling on about rights, knowing full well that making it compulsory could only save more lives.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore This isn't just about property rights (which oddly enough raises questions about how the legalities lie with the family's intentions with the organs, since they now own them, compared to that dead person's intent), this is about comparing the greater good to anally rententive purist right-wing ideals. Only someone with blinkers on will keep rambling on about rights, knowing full well that making it compulsory could only save more lives.

Taking every penny of people’s money which is not absolutely essential for survival and investing it in the health services will save more lives, yet you do not, I assume, support this. Your stance is logically inconsistent.

[pikatore]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy Taking every penny of people’s money which is not absolutely essential for survival and investing it in the health services will save more lives, yet you do not, I assume, support this. Your stance is logically inconsistent.

It isn't supposed to be consistent in that respect, since you can't replace someone's failing heart with a wad of cash.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Pikatore It isn't supposed to be consistent in that respect, since you can't replace someone's failing heart with a wad of cash.

You can pay for drugs, surgery, facilities, treatments and personnel by taking people's "non-essential" money. This will save lives, probably more than organ theft will. Why then do you support the forceful acquisition of organs but not of money?

[pikatore]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy You can pay for drugs, surgery, facilities, treatments and personnel by taking people's "non-essential" money. This will save lives, probably more than organ theft will. Why then do you support the forceful acquisition of organs but not of money?

Because money can be spent on anything, it's something that has material value to everybody.

There are thousands of viable organs wasted every day on this planet, and countless deaths due to the inability for people to find one in time. Organs are so hard to get, they have to be flown from somewhere else, or driven halfway across the country! Meanwhile, countless organs are rotting in some graves half a mile away. That's the difference.

[nilan3000]

Many posters here repeatedly say "what does the dead person need the organs for?". Your logic goes by science and what science tells us. I share the same sentiment and I applaud you for that.

However, you are forgetting that not everyone thinks like us and that some people have superstitious beleifs that they would rest in peace better if they were left alone as a corpse. We may not like it, but we have to respect their beleifs, no matter how weird it seems to us.

Raising awareness of medicine is good, teaching people on the benefits of donating organs is good, encouraing people to help patients is good. But saying "you have to do it whether you like it or not" isnt the right path.