@ Draugnar: "What happens when somebody opts out but it is conveniently lost because they have a rare blood type and happen to be a match for a rich asshole who doesn't deserve a new liver?"

If you believe that this kind of abuse of the system is likely to happen, how do you know that the authorities aren't already forging donor cards for recently deceased people to allow their organs to be taken? This being a possibilty, an opt-in system is no better than an opt-out system, in terms of the potential for corruption. As both systems are equal on this score, it can still be argued that an opt-out system is superior, because IT SAVES LIVES.

Saving lives is more important than your "right" to have your dead body left undisturbed. On what basis do you claim to have this "right" anyway? I don't think this stands up as a right - how can dead people have rights? They no longer exist to claim them.

In other words, the needs of the living outweigh the "rights" of the dead.

I dont know if it is real but it didnt apear in any Isrealy newspaper, so it probbly isnt.

@Jamiet99uk
You took the words right out of my mouth. As a society we have to weigh some rights against others. The right to free speech is superseded by the right to live in a environment free of hate literature. The right to smoke is superseded by the right to clean air. Surely the right to live supersedes almost any other.

@girmo
The fact that it didn't appear in any Israeli newspaper does not indicate that it didn't happen. All newspapers in the world are censored either directly by governments or indirectly through a variety of mechanisms.

Opt in versus opt out, pros and cons to both, either could be abused. But if the key question is how do you get the organs of those that don't mind their organs being used but currently are wasted, that's where a tax incentive could greatly help. Or some other incentive, maybe organ donors get bumped in priority over non-organ donors when waiting for a doctor or such.

@Jamie - they are not equal in that forgin a document is far more difficult than losing one. Especially as the only documents we currently have are wallet cards for the opt-in. Wallets get separated easily enough from the victim in an accident and if the opt-out were a wallet card as well, then an unintentional abuse could still occur.

My body is mine even after I die. That is why the last will and testament is taken as sacrosanct and if someone specifies that they want to be disposed of in a certain way, we are obligated to do that. The same applies to PARTS of my body. I have the final say and you shoudn't have any right to assume anything about my body except that I want it whole and intact.

And somebody mentioned making blood donations be a requirement as well. So, you say I should have to take the risk of catching an infectious and dealy disease like AIDs because you want my blood. Go the fuck away, vampire.

Now, I am an organ donor and I do give blood. I just don't agree in an opt-out or required participation for either. I believe both are 100% voluntary and must be an opt-in option. Encourage them with tax deductions. Make a lottery that only donors of that month are eligible for that has some nice (maybe not life changing, but nice) prize to it.

But don't tell me I have to do anything when it come to my body, and don't tell me if I don't take a certain action, you will harvest my organs. These decisions are mine to make and my privacy and sanctity of my body demands that society has no say unless I grant it to them (opt-in).

The dead have rights. If they didn't. a last will and testament would be meaningless and we could just discard bodies any old way we want. We can't. There fore the dead have rights. And if the dead didn't have rights. Then there would be no need to pursue murderers. After all, the dead isn't a person and has no rights, therefore they don't need the justice. Oh, and if they aren't people, then we do we occassionally refer to them as dead people or a dead person? The dead have rights.

So where does that right to life stop? Do we start harvesting organs from criminals on death row? How about from the terminally ill? Do we end an accident victims life early so we can harvest his or her organs? You are going down a slippery slope denying the right of a person to make the decision when they are alive about what will happen to their mortal remains.

And one final note on the rights of the dead. You know it is a crime to desicrate a grave or molest a corpse right? If they have no rights, you can't commit a crime against them, yet we have laws declaring actions against a corpse to be serious crimes.

@Draugnar
I completely agree with you about blood donation but I have a problem with the rights of dead people when they infringe on the rights of the living. Your body came from the dust of this earth and it will return to the dust of this earth. You have borrowed some molecules for a span but by what right can you claim these molecules as yours for eternity? By your logic the entire field of archeology is a crime.

Both true, SunZi. Archeologist treat any remains they find with respect. There was a time when many so called "archeologists" were nothing more than grave robbers. They were criminals in my mind, no different than opening a casket and stealing a rolex.

What I'm saying is the living have a right to not have their bodies desecrated and to spell out just what they consider desecration. There should be some set standard that is applied across the board for those who haven't specified it, and I would rather that standard be more strict than less.

Again, I'm saying this as one who has already opted in and gives blood regularly. A living individual should, and does, have a right to say what will happen with their body when they pass on. This is already in place. You can't argue it isn't as we have both last will and etstaments, opt-ins for donors, and living wills to determine what will happen should we be unable to attacnd to matters personally. All of these are legally binding documents. And we have crimes against corpses that clearly couldn't be crimes if the corpse is not imbued with certain rights. Who'd care if you fucked a corpse or stole it's rolex watch? It's not like the family members would necessarily know (especially if you scarfed the watch just before the casket was closed before a closed casket ceremony). But it is still a crime, therefore the victim, i.e. the corpse, must have rights.

I'm not arguing that the dead do not have rights, just that some rights are superseded by other rights as in my examples of smoking and free speech. So let me ask you a question. What if it became popular for people to write in their will that their houses stand empty for eternity? Our cities would fill up with empty houses, sprawl across the land and we would soon run out of space. Wouldn't the rights of the living supersede the rights of the dead in this case and lead to laws banning this? IMHO both this and the case of wanting to keep your organs after death are almost the same.

A better analogy would be that people put in their wills that they wanted all their assets liquidated, turned into gold bullion, and put in their casket with them. Oh wait, they can do that, can't they? Now, that money could be used for such good, but it is still their right to take it with them. It is also their right to take their organs with them.

And keeping your organs doesn't fill up the land, so epic fail in your analogy.

oh hey this story was a lie, neat

Fun game: try interpreting why you were so credulous as to believe this. Bad at science or a hater of Jews? The whole family can play!

@Acosmist: Why is it a lie? Because it wasn't reported in state-run media like girmo said?

Fun game: try interpreting why you were so credulous as to automatically dismiss this and insinuate that it's antisemitic for reporting on facts. Bad brain or a persecution complex?

here you go:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34503294/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/21/israel-admits-harvesting_n_399623.html

More media links:
http://www.google.com/search?q=Doctor+admits+Israeli+pathologists+harvested+organs+without+consent

"'We'd glue eyelid shut'
In the interview, Hiss described how his doctors would mask the removal of corneas from bodies. "We'd glue the eyelid shut," he said. "We wouldn't take corneas from families we knew would open the eyelids."

Many of the details in the interview first came to light in 2004, when Hiss was dismissed as head of the forensic institute because of irregularities over use of organs there. Israel's attorney general dropped criminal charges against him, and Hiss still works as chief pathologist at the institute. He had no comment on the TV report."

Google will enlighten you.

"@Acosmist: Why is it a lie? Because it wasn't reported in state-run media like girmo said?"

what

Compare "Israel admits harvesting Palestinian organs" to "United States admits assassinating JFK." Compare, I say, because, after all, Lee Harvey Oswald was a member of the U.S. military...the Guardian had the good sense to change the headline as it was grossly in opposition to the facts.

"Fun game: try interpreting why you were so credulous as to automatically dismiss this and insinuate that it's antisemitic for reporting on facts. Bad brain or a persecution complex?"

I'm not Jewish. And the title of this thread is a gross distortion. Care to fix that?

Ball's in your court, slugger.

@SunZi, you didn't argue that dead people don't have rights, but Jamie did. He asked "how can dead people have rights?" I have answered his question by example and, therefore, proof that they do have rights. Moreover, the living have the right to dedcide what will happen with their body after they are dead. Only a communist would think otherwise.

Is it that dead people have rights or that the living have rights to self-determination that extend beyond their natural lives in some cases...

You can't change thread titles genius, mine was copy-pasted from the news article.
What does you being Jewish have to do with a bad brain and a persecution complex? Are you really trying to imply that Jews have those? Who is antisemitic now.

Lee Harvey Oswald, really? The guy responsible is still working for the Israeli government. Maybe you'd have a point if Lee Harvey Oswald was active military and kept his job (simply reassigned) after the assassination.

"You can't change thread titles genius, mine was copy-pasted from the news article."

Sucks to be you, now you look like you're saying something completely wrong.

"What does you being Jewish have to do with a bad brain and a persecution complex?"

Wait, now it's a conjunction? It was a disjunction the last time you said it:

"Bad brain or a persecution complex?"

What happened ;_;

"Are you really trying to imply that Jews have those?"

No.

"Who is antisemitic now."

Is that a question or what.

I guess I have to explain - I can't have a persecution complex when I'm neither Israeli nor Jewish (nor a person harvesting organs, Palestinian or otherwise, nor any number of things that would cause me to feel persecution at this thread). So, man, I definitely did not feel persecuted by this thread.

"Lee Harvey Oswald, really?"

Frealz.

"The guy responsible is still working for the Israeli government."

So I guess Lee Harvey was a discharge away from making my hypothetical headline correct (wow, do you really want to commit to that position?).

"Maybe you'd have a point if Lee Harvey Oswald was active military and kept his job (simply reassigned) after the assassination."

Oh, you do. Awkward.

"Sucks to be you, now you look like you're saying something completely wrong."

I suppose if you're not versed on how things work when people pass information along to one another. Everything in my post is copy pasted from the article, I didn't add any opinion because I was more interested in reading what people thought about it. I still haven't. You're assuming that you know y opinion based on me coming after you for polluting the thread -- perhaps you should consider the forum you're on before you do any assuming.

"What happened ;_;"

It seems you missed the parallel of rewriting your words to show you how ridiculous they were. You're arguing against your own flawed argument which makes this highly entertaining.

"I guess I have to explain - I can't have a persecution complex when I'm neither Israeli nor Jewish (nor a person harvesting organs, Palestinian or otherwise, nor any number of things that would cause me to feel persecution at this thread). So, man, I definitely did not feel persecuted by this thread."

You're assigning beliefs to to those in the thread who believe objective facts (wow, what a horrible trait to have) based on your own ignorant assumption of motive, thus the complex. You played the antisemitic card. What does you being Jewish or not being Jewish have anything to do with it other than the fact that you're throwing it out there as a reason for belief or disbelief and dilluting the discourse with your own prejudice?

"Oh, you do. Awkward."

You made the connection and I pointed out to you how completely ridiculous it was. Pretty awkward indeed.

Oh, and girmo:

"According to the arrangement, the prosecution will request that Prof. Hiss receive only a reprimand for his involvement in the unauthorized removal of parts from 125 bodies. In exchange, Hiss will admit to the acts. The plea bargain is subject to the approval of the court.

In all of the 125 cases, Dr. Hiss and his subordinates removed organs, bones and tissue without the permission of, and in many cases, against the expressed wishes of the families of the deceased.

According to evidence submitted in the past, Abu Kabir had a “museum of skulls” set up by Dr. Hiss that included the skulls of IDF soldiers that had been shot in the head. He has also been investigated for selling organs and falsifying testimony.

Hiss was fired from his position as Director of the institute shortly after the courts became involved in allegations against him, but has remained the Chief Pathologist at the Institute.

This is not the first time that Hiss has escaped legal consequences for his actions. Former Attorney-General Elyakim Rubenstein aroused objections from several directions when he ruled that Hiss should not be charged with criminal behavior, even though he provided "expert testimony" about autopsies at which he had not been present and used tissues and organs after autopsies without permission from the families of the deceased.

In July 2002, while Hiss was under police investigation for suspicions including the removal of organs from 81 deceased persons without familial consent, the Supreme Court rejected a petition by the Movement for Quality in Government (MQG) demanding his suspension."

He got a slap on the wrist for violating Jewish law and desecrating the bodies of Palestinians and other Jews.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/90518

My view - He was acting without official sanctioning from the government, but the penalties he suffered when discovered clearly implies he was acting in an unofficially sanctioned manner. This is much like the actions of the US CIA with their flights to countries that sanctioned torture so that they could torture the suspected terrorists. Or, really on par, this fits in with the Bodies exhibit from China where organ harvesting and human rights violations abound.

@Draugnar
Don't be ridiculous. My analogy of empty houses shows how the rights of the dead can infringe on the rights of the living and I notice that you didn't answer the question. As for people filling their caskets with gold bullion I would be opposed to that as well and I'd bet you anything that it would be outlawed if it began to seriously decrease the world's gold reserves. King Tut's treasures are out there making a tidy sum for some museum and I don't hear anybody complaining about his rights.

As for comparisons this case bears no resemblance whatsoever to CIA torture or what is happening in China. Both those examples deal with living people.

@SunZi- You are right but Israely govermant wouldnt admit anything without writing it on the newspaper. I find it very hard to belive if only a few non-Isrealy papers wrote it.

@Draugnar: "@Jamie - they are not equal in that forging a document is far more difficult than losing one. Especially as the only documents we currently have are wallet cards for the opt-in. Wallets get separated easily enough from the victim in an accident and if the opt-out were a wallet card as well, then an unintentional abuse could still occur."

I'm not sure about the USA, but here in the UK, if you are a donor your details are held on a database to which the hospital can refer - so you don't need to actually locate the person's donor card in order to take their organs. The fact that their name is on the database is sufficient authority.

@Draugnar: "My body is mine even after I die. That is why the last will and testament is taken as sacrosanct and if someone specifies that they want to be disposed of in a certain way, we are obligated to do that."

Actually there are numerous circumstances in which the instructions given in someone's will may be ignored or over-ruled. Here is an example which I have nicked from wikipedia:

QUOTE: "In the United States, many states have probate statutes which permit the surviving spouse of the decedent to choose to receive a particular share of deceased spouse's estate in lieu of receiving the specified share left to him or her under the deceased spouse's will. As a simple example, under Iowa law (see Code of Iowa Section 633.238 (2005)), the deceased spouse leaves a will which expressly gifts the marital home to someone other than the surviving spouse. The surviving spouse may elect, contrary to the intent of the will, to live in the home for the remainder of his/her lifetime. This is called a "life estate" and terminates immediately upon the surviving spouse's death.

The historical and social policy purposes of such statutes are to assure that the surviving spouse receives a statutorily set minimum amount of property from the decedent. Historically, these statutes were enacted to prevent the deceased spouse from leaving the survivor destitute, thereby shifting the burden of care to the social welfare system. END QUOTE


@Draugnar: "And one final note on the rights of the dead. You know it is a crime to desicrate a grave or molest a corpse right? If they have no rights, you can't commit a crime against them, yet we have laws declaring actions against a corpse to be serious crimes."

This does not demonstrate that the dead have rights. If I urinate against a lamp post, I may be arrested if a police officer sees me. This does not imply that the lamp post has rights.

It is a crime to desecrate a grave, but this is not because the body in the grave has rights. It is because society as a whole, acting through government, has decided that desecrating graves and having sex with corpses is disgusting and should be legislated against.

Corpses ought to be seized by the government, sanitized, and distributed as a source of nutrition in a welfare program for the undernourished. You can opt out if you'd like.

You list one example from a backward state like Iowa? What come sout of Iowa? Potatoes... How about a state like New York (finance capital of the US if not the world), or California (entertainment capital), or Ohio (home of Compuserve, the birth place of the consumer-oriented internet), or Virginia, or Maryland (both border THE capital of the US Government), or... well... just about any other state except Arkansas and Alaska.