Whilst I couldn't find the original article to which they refer, the following appeared in today Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/8241736/It-seems-that-local-councils-do-not-care-if-we-recycle-rubbish-after-all.html)

Organ consent

SIR – When applying for a driver’s licence, we are to be obliged to answer a question about organ donations (Letters, January 3) with “Yes I would like to register”, “I do not want to answer this question now”, or “I am already registered”.

But there will not be an option of “No”. This is a manipulative move towards compulsion or an opt-out system.

Already, “consent” for organ donations is not informed on at least three grounds. First, there is no explanation of the harvesting procedure.

Secondly, there is no definition of death, which for transplant purposes is very different from the common understanding, and continues to be contested internationally.

Thirdly, there is no opportunity to insist on full anaesthesia for when a donor is “dead” but is still responsive.

This deception of an altruistic public has continued for more than 30 years and the organ donation system now moves further away from properly informed consent.

Dr David J. Hill
Dr David W. Evans
Nicholas Blyth
Huntingdon

"Because we don’t know how to without dramatic reductions in the quality of life of everyone" - not true, there are many examples of socialised universal health care in europe which do not have a corresponding 'dramatic reduciton in the quality of life.

"So one minute you own your body and then next you don't? I disagree. What you own in life, you own in death" - no, i'm arguing just that you don't exist after death, and thus can't own anything.

"Oh, and if you don't own your body, then your family should not be held responsible for it's disposition and any debts accrued as a result (i.e. funeral expenses)."

and if your family can't afford to pay for funeral expenses, or you have no family the state takes care of it anyway. (at least in Ireland, where the minister for state has a responcibility to ensure that your body is properly buried/cremated - he has every right to defer to the family's wishes or the deceased wished if he chooses)

The question of what to do with debts or assets after death is a seperate one, but your basic arguement is that property rights exist after death, and i can see no reason why this should be true - your whole system of rights is based on the right of living things to continue and that they own themselves. Well this is clearly faulty when it comes to the discontinuation of life.

@figles, valid points all.

Who says my view of rights applies to living things. My view of rights is that they apply to *people*, whther dead or alive. Not all living things have rights. The tree in my front yard is very much alive but I can choose to cut it down with a chain saw if I desire (I don't , but this is just for a point). It has no rights. But people have rights and those rights, in my opinion (and in the courts opinion in the US of A) extend beyond my life. If you doubt the court backing this, look to copyright law and an artist's rights which extend to the artists family when the artist has passed for many generations. When I pass, all that I am becomes property of my family unless I have declared elsewise in a will. This is upheld by the courts in all civilized countries.

And while the state has, for health purposes, a responsibility to bury/cremate the dead should there be no family that can afford to pay the bill, that responsibility does not endow the state with rights that over rule the rights of the individual should their estate be able to pay those bills. So, if the state isn't held responsible in a specific case, the state has no rights over the property of the deceased beyond the ability to tax the estate as set forth in law. Nothing in the law declares that a person losses ownership of *anything* upon their death, that includes their body. I would disavow any relationship with any government who declared my body to no longer be mine after I died and find a new home country in those circumstances.

@SpeakerToAliens:

Right to religion, bro.

Screw the environmentalists, I have rights (or if you're TGM, privileges granted by my government, who calls them rights)

Btw, that was a joke, just saw some people blasting about rights and stuff.

No, but I seriously hope I can have a sweet Viking funeral, with at least my body, and maybe not the organs.

“"Because we don’t know how to without dramatic reductions in the quality of life of everyone" - not true, there are many examples of socialised universal health care in europe which do not have a corresponding 'dramatic reduciton in the quality of life.”

I contest this. The only reason you say this is you don’t see what harm is done by the socialised medical system. I would rather fall ill in the US than in Europe, and furthermore the expense incurred massively increases the tax burden.

@ Draugnar: "@Jamie - Define reasonable level of education and reasonable healthcare. College is not a reasonable level of education. I don't believe everyone should go to college because I don't believe everyone has the ability to learn at that level. All intellects are not created equal and we should not waste resources on those who will not be improved by them."

I agree with you. There is no point sending people to university who are not suited to academia and would be better off learning a trade and taking up a more technical profession. At no point was I arguing that everyone should be sent to university/college whether it suits them or not.

In terms of 'what is a reasonable level of education?', as your comments show, it's about what is appropriate to the capacity of the kids and the needs of their society. Ultimately that's up to the state and people to determine.

"Similarly, healthcare... I'm sure you disagree, but a drunken bum who destroys his liver does not have some right to get a new one. A crack baby has every right to get all the help we can provide it, but its crack whore mom has no right to get anything more than free help kicking the addiction if she so chooses."

Why do you think I would disagree with this? In fact I broadly agree. If genuine efforts are made to help the drunk and the crack whore (your terminology) give up their addictions and to assist them to start looking after their health, and they refuse to engage with these efforts, I would agree that they should be a lower priority for organ transplant, should their organs fail due to their self-abuse. Just because the state ought to make efforts to look after you, that doesn't mean you don't also have a duty to look after yourself where possible.

"Yes, there are plenty of people who, through no fault of their own, are in dire circumstances."

And we should help those people. If possible, by making it more difficuly for them to fall into dire circumstances in the first place.

"But there are also many who just don't give a fuck."

Sadly, you're right and I generally agree with you that if people wilfully put their health at risk, they should not be first in line for treatment.




Now here's an interesting issue:

DRAUGNAR: "So, no problem with denying a person the right to decide what to do with their body... Is not their body their property? "

ORATHAIC: "not after death. the fact is i'm willing to disregard a last will and testament."


I don't think this is an issue of property rights. I do however think that we have a duty to honour, within reason, the clearly expressed wishes of those who have died. Why do I think that? Simply, it is my view that ignoring the wishes of the dead causes harm to society.

Our society has clearly decided that it is right and proper for people to leave instructions (writing wills, registering as an organ donor, etc) to be carried out after their death. One of the reasons people write a will is because it gives them a sense of comfort. They feel assured that, should they die, everything will be taken care of in accordance with their wishes.

Now, if we started routinely ignoring the wishes of the dead as Orathaic proposes, people would not have that sense of comfort. Many people would worry and fret about what Orthaic might do to their corpse, against their wishes, after they had died. Important social conventions regarding death and respect for the dead would crumble. In their place, anguish.

Why should we cause society this harm?


And finally, Ghostmonger. Part one:

ME: “Why can't we? I say it again, it's such a basic requirement it should be universal. If we can't ensure decent healthcare is universally available, we should divert resources towards healthcare until this is achieved.”

GHOST: "Because we don’t know how to without dramatic reductions in the quality of life of everyone."

I cannot agree with you here. How much do we spend on nuclear weapons? How much is wasted on the built-in over-capacity required to give people meaningless 'choices'? How much does the Pope spend on fancy hats and robes? What is Glenn Beck's salary? The resources to deliver a decent level of universal healthcare exist. They are just being wasted on other things we don't need.


Part two:

ME: “Your allowance from your parents is a privelige, but once again, a decent level of education is a basic requirement and everyone should have access to it. I don't care whether you want to use the language of rights or not, but society has a duty to look after its members, and that includes a duty to see that a reasonable level of education is universally available.”

GHOST: Why?

Because we're all members of the same group. It's called the human race. We must interact with each other to operate, and through this we evolved civilisation. Civilisation is a good thing. Education is part of what makes us civilised, and it should therefore be available to all. That's why.

“I cannot agree with you here. How much do we spend on nuclear weapons? How much is wasted on the built-in over-capacity required to give people meaningless 'choices'? How much does the Pope spend on fancy hats and robes? What is Glenn Beck's salary? The resources to deliver a decent level of universal healthcare exist. They are just being wasted on other things we don't need.”

But there is no way of allocating them. Every attempt to do so has failed, because it doesn’t take into account human motivation.

“Because we're all members of the same group. It's called the human race. We must interact with each other to operate, and through this we evolved civilisation. Civilisation is a good thing. Education is part of what makes us civilised, and it should therefore be available to all. That's why.”

So you say that those who have been failed at school are uncivilised?

@Jamie - it sounds like we actually agree on more things than disagree after all. But I do wonder what a privtae individuals salary from a company is anyone else's business or why you think that person should be forced to give up that slalry for the common good (your reference to "What is Glenn Beck's salary?").

I make more than most local TV or radio personalities in greater Cincinnati (local folks really don't make huge slalries unless they are in an LA or NY type of market). And while I chose to give to charities like the Salvation Army, United Way, the Red Cross, and the Fine Arts Fund, I don't believe I should be forced to make the contribution to the Red Cross (good example because it involves people's health and safety, quite commonly). But it appears you are proposing that my "excessive" salary should be cut and that money go to healthcare, or that it should be taxed even more than the nearly 30% I already pay between federal, state, and local taxes.

*salaries, not slalries

@Spyman:If there were an opt-out system, far more organs will be available legitimately so many more lives would be saved so there will be a reduced need to pay for one and therefore reduced incentives available to medical staff to fake a death in order to make more organs available.

@Jamiet99uk:I said I *thought* it was Brazil and Brazil introduced an opt-out law that they have since scrapped due to public opposition (I'm pretty sure it was a South American country though, but my knowledge of the story is ~20 years old). This is an extract from www.newint.org/easier-english/orgsale.html

"Brazil: A new law - everyone is a donor

Like India, Brazil has made a new law to try to stop the trade in human organs. But this law is different. It does not ban the sale of organs: instead it says that every adult Brazilian becomes an organ donor when they die, unless they get a special identity card that says they are not a donor. The idea behind this law is that there will be many organs available for transplant and so nobody will need to buy one.

However, many ordinary Brazilian people see the law in a different way. They are worried that greedy doctors and health workers will take advantage of the new law. As one man explained, "Now we are doubly afraid of being hit by a car. We were always afraid of crazy drivers. Now we have to worry about ambulance workers who have been paid to say that we are dead when, really, we are not." For this reason many people have got new identity cards to show they are not donors, and more and more people are opposing the new law."

"I contest this. The only reason you say this is you don’t see what harm is done by the socialised medical system. I would rather fall ill in the US than in Europe, and furthermore the expense incurred massively increases the tax burden."

- i think you just dropped to 'massively increased tax burden' from your original claim of 'dramatic reduciton in the quality of life.'

You can't demonstrate and dramatic reduction in the quality of life of Europeans. You might be able to claim that in the long term quality of life will increase more slowly in europe (though i would dispute this) but that doesn't have anything to do with the current quality of life.

Also i can make the counter claim that 'average' quality of life is more important than the 'best' quality afforded to the rich - and further that an unequal society leads to unrest and crime - which places a bigger burden on the tax system and policing of your 'ideal' society.

@Draug 'Who says my view of rights applies to living things. My view of rights is that they apply to *people*, whther dead or alive.' - No it isn't.

You claim that people no longer have the right to their own body after they have died. You claim it passes on, we are only disputing who it SHOULD pass on to.

"There is no point sending people to university who are not suited to academia and would be better off learning a trade and taking up a more technical profession." - and there exists technical colleges which offer such education.

'Now, if we started routinely ignoring the wishes of the dead as Orathaic proposes, people would not have that sense of comfort. Many people would worry and fret about what Orthaic might do to their corpse, against their wishes, after they had died. Important social conventions regarding death and respect for the dead would crumble. In their place, anguish.'

- Of course, this is correct, but what is actually done with a body after death is a social convention, and if people KNOW what the state will do with their body then they have nothing to worry about.

They can argue of course, then can even destroy their body instead of letting it fall into the government's hands. However it is not unreasonable to claim that society has a right to define it's own norms, and while ours may be based on respect and honour, i would prefer to live in a society which valued life over the post-wishes. (now of course with sufficient research we'll, eventually, be able to grow organs in the lab from stem cells, and i'd be happy if i didn't have to rely on donations and second-hand organs to save my life... but that's a side arguement/alternative solution)

The fact that most religions have customs for how to deal with their dead does not discount the fact that they also believe in an after-life. Customs for burying the dead are important health reasons, as corpses cause disease, but if you're going to your after-life then it stands to reason you're not going to be too worried about what happens to your body AND if you don't believe in an after-life it stands to reason you're not going to be too worried about what happens to anything after you die.

In any case, it is not a neccesary part of society that we honour the dead by entitling them to property rights of their organs.

@Allocation of resources: Ghost said - "But there is no way of allocating them. Every attempt to do so has failed, because it doesn’t take into account human motivation." - that is a simplification, and in an unequal system which naturally develops when greed is allowed to be successful (ie where you allow capital accumulation) you also get envy which motivates crime - which forces private security arrangments.

Now you can see that the rich are able to afford to buy a safe and put their valuables in it, but this is not neccesarily a better distribution of wealth.

@Draug: "I do wonder what a privtae individuals salary from a company is anyone else's business or why you think that person should be forced to give up that slalry for the common good (your reference to "What is Glenn Beck's salary?")." - you wonder this? really, why should a society support taxation at all? is that your question?

i'm afraid i don't think i can explain it if you don't understand already...

"But it appears you are proposing that my "excessive" salary should be cut and that money go to healthcare, or that it should be taxed even more than the nearly 30% I already pay between federal, state, and local taxes."

Our state functions very well, ~41% tax in the higher tax band - that means those who earn millions do pay about 40% in tax, whereas those who barely scrap a living pay more like 5%. What is unjust about this?

@orathaic - "@Draug 'Who says my view of rights applies to living things. My view of rights is that they apply to *people*, whther dead or alive.' - No it isn't.

You claim that people no longer have the right to their own body after they have died. You claim it passes on, we are only disputing who it SHOULD pass on to."

Yes, my view *is* that it is the proper of the owner even after death. The family only gets the say if the deceased granted that say in a will or by default without a will. But the same deceased can have it specified in their will exactly how every aspect of their estate will be handled, included the decision involving their organs and their burial and, as long as it doesn't violate another law (like they can't say they want their carcass impaled on a flag pole at the local high school), and their estate can afford the expense, it must be obeyed. That is my view. So don't tell me what is and isn't my view. You aren't a fucking psychic and Iknow what I think. You don't.

Re: the afterlife. A number of religions believe the person will return in their original body to occupy the earth after Armageddon. Some of these are ancient like the Egyptians, others are more modern and belief the body will be renewed (i.e. won't be decayed with leathery skin) but that the organs must be there. You make the assumption that the afterlife in all religions isn't going to need the present body, but that is a false assumption and proves you know little about the variety of religions of the world or even the US. Mormonism believes we will be resurrected, that is restored to our original bodies. Did you know that? Obviously not or you wouldn't make such a patently false statement.

So, be sure of your absolute statements before you make them, orathaic, and avoid looking like a fool.

@Spyman:If there were an opt-out system, far more organs will be available legitimately so many more lives would be saved so there will be a reduced need to pay for one and therefore reduced incentives available to medical staff to fake a death in order to make more organs available.

@SpeakerToAliens, I think you make a good point.

@ Ghostmaker: "So you say that those who have been failed at school are uncivilised?"

Education is about more than just grades. With decent schooling even those who don't get many qualifications learn *something* to their benefit.


@ Draugnar: " (your reference to "What is Glenn Beck's salary?")."

I only put that in as an attempt at humour because I don't like Glenn Beck. Although as orthaic says, we already take money from people's salaries in the form of taxation. Personally, I like paying taxes.

"but that is a false assumption and proves you know little about the variety of religions of the world or even the US. Mormonism believes we will be resurrected, that is restored to our original bodies. Did you know that?"

Obviously not, but then i'm aware that the (US) state has chosen to ignore religious beliefs before and give blood where it was in the interest of the patient over the objections of the parents.

I am of the opinion that your religious beliefs should not allow you to violate the law, hence the terrorists who attacked the twin towers - as described in the Quo-ran, re protecting their religion from the infidels (a twisted interpretation if ever i heard one) - were wrong.

I am further of the opinion that the state has a mandate to protect the right to life of all people (not just it's citizens, but also to help other states protect their citizens) And thus letting organs go to waste is a failing of that duty - whatever archaic beliefs you happen to subscribe to.

I'm a big fan of Larry Niven. He has written several science fiction detective stories (not an easy thing to do). They are set in a world where medical science advances mean anybody can be given just about any new organ or limb to improve their quality of life.

In such a world there would be a major shortage of "material". The major crime in that future-history is organ-legging (someone alone in the street late at night get knocked on the head, carted off to the "hospital" and wakes up a piece at a time. It's risky to the crooks, but the "material" available from the average healthy body can be worth millions).

Because new organs mean you can live a long healthy life, executed criminals end up in the organ-banks. Because everyone wants to live forever, more and more crimes become capital crimes. Eventually, there is only one punishment for crimes - the organ-banks.

For more on this see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organlegging and read the short stories in "The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton" and the novel "A Gift from Earth".

Also, Draug, i'm glad you found time to reply to none of the other points i've raised.

We clearly differ, is it not enough to say that you completely disagree with me on this one salient point and then proceed to deal with things which we might actually have something to talk about?

“@ Ghostmaker: "So you say that those who have been failed at school are uncivilised?"

Education is about more than just grades. With decent schooling even those who don't get many qualifications learn *something* to their benefit.”

But you accept the premise that those who have not had a decent schooling are uncivilised?

@ Draugnar,
I think you find that Mormons actually have no problems with organ donation, as do the majority or major religions according to this anyways: http://organdonor.gov/donation/religious_views.htm#a24
So I guess telling people to look things up before saying them and not looking like a tool would also apply to you. :P
I would love to know of the Muslim attitude towards organ donation, any Muslims like to shed some light on this for me?

@ TheGhostmaker:

"But you accept the premise that those who have not had a decent schooling are uncivilised?"

You are delierately, trollishly, twisting my words in a way which, frankly, is beneath someone of your intellect.

Do you contend that education is uncecessary? Otherwise, what's your point here?

@Jamiet:
" I only put that in as an attempt at humour because I don't like Glenn Beck. Although as orthaic says, we already take money from people's salaries in the form of taxation. Personally, I like paying taxes. "
Well you're more than welcome to pay mine...

"Our state functions very well, ~41% tax in the higher tax band - that means those who earn millions do pay about 40% in tax, whereas those who barely scrap a living pay more like 5%. What is unjust about this?"

This only refers to income tax, there are lots of other taxes. Sales tax, payroll tax, etc. These are regressive taxes - meaning people with higher incomes pay less as a proportion of their income. Second, we tax investments (which upper income people tend to have a lot more of) and corporations very little. I know people will bring up the corporate tax rate, but the fact of the matter is there are so many loopholes that when it comes to actual taxes paid, the corporate tax rate is trivial. Bank of America, for example, paid no federal taxes in 2009.

"I am further of the opinion that the state has a mandate to protect the right to life of all people (not just it's citizens, but also to help other states protect their citizens) And thus letting organs go to waste is a failing of that duty - whatever archaic beliefs you happen to subscribe to."

+1 Ora

"@ TheGhostmaker:

"But you accept the premise that those who have not had a decent schooling are uncivilised?"

You are delierately, trollishly, twisting my words in a way which, frankly, is beneath someone of your intellect.

Do you contend that education is uncecessary? Otherwise, what's your point here?"

My point is that education is not necessary for a civil society, and that what is necessary for a civil society is well enforced property rights, which grant people the freedom that makes them a citizen rather than a possession of another human or organisation.

The point I'm making is that your claim that education is necessary to be civil is just plain wrong. I'm giving you the option to retract that claim by following it to its conclusion- that those who weren't educated cannot be civil- a conclusion neither of us agrees with.

@Education - i grant you Ghost that it is possible to uphold property rights without any formal education.

That doesn't mean informal education has not occured.

So allowing that civility CAN be achieved without formal (state-sponsored) education, the position becomes one of equality within society, and providing equal opportunities for people to achieve - this is a fundamental requirement to prevent civil unrest.

When people believe they are not getting a 'fair' deal from their state they tend to withdraw their support - which may result in lower voter turnout, higher crime rates and respect for property rights being lost. Or to put it another way, a loss of civility.