Advertisement
by Spirit of Hope » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:38 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:40 am
Pollona wrote:If a deceased person did not register their wishes with their family, at all, and gave no hints, what are they to do? Its entirely plausible for the deceased's family to have no belief either way, and thus not object when prompted to have the organs harvested. However, if the deceased would have otherwise refused consent if explicitly asked, the state is still in a position to harvest organs from a non-consenting person.
Pollona wrote:the next of kin system is no direct substitute for a person registering their explicit consent before death.
Pollona wrote:That you are going to such extreme lengths to split hairs, in order to uphold the ludicrous notion that absolutely no one will fall through the cracks, is utterly baffling.
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 08, 2018 8:46 am
by Pollona » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:21 am
The New California Republic wrote:Pollona wrote:If a deceased person did not register their wishes with their family, at all, and gave no hints, what are they to do? Its entirely plausible for the deceased's family to have no belief either way, and thus not object when prompted to have the organs harvested. However, if the deceased would have otherwise refused consent if explicitly asked, the state is still in a position to harvest organs from a non-consenting person.
If the person didn't give any hint as to their views on organ donation to either the State or their family, then that's just too bad, as corpses aren't capable of saying anything on the matter. It falls to their family in that regard. Similarly, if someone dies intestate, then they have effectively forfeited any say over who gets their belongings, and it is up to the family and the State to figure it out between them somehow.Pollona wrote:That you are going to such extreme lengths to split hairs, in order to uphold the ludicrous notion that absolutely no one will fall through the cracks, is utterly baffling.
If a dead person did not consent to it while they were alive, and they never made their views on the matter known to either the State or their family when they were alive, then that is just tough shit. What is going to happen if organs are taken from the corpse of someone that wouldn't have consented? How would we even know, if they never made their views known? What are the consequences of going against the views of a dead person who never made said views known to anyone? Will their ghost haunt us or something, as that is the only real way of knowing and the only consequence that I can see...?
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 08, 2018 9:40 am
Pollona wrote:The New California Republic wrote:If the person didn't give any hint as to their views on organ donation to either the State or their family, then that's just too bad, as corpses aren't capable of saying anything on the matter. It falls to their family in that regard. Similarly, if someone dies intestate, then they have effectively forfeited any say over who gets their belongings, and it is up to the family and the State to figure it out between them somehow.
If a dead person did not consent to it while they were alive, and they never made their views on the matter known to either the State or their family when they were alive, then that is just tough shit. What is going to happen if organs are taken from the corpse of someone that wouldn't have consented? How would we even know, if they never made their views known? What are the consequences of going against the views of a dead person who never made said views known to anyone? Will their ghost haunt us or something, as that is the only real way of knowing and the only consequence that I can see...?
At last. We agree then? The state is inevitably going to violate the bodily integrity of some individuals who would not have otherwise consented to have their organs donated, no? You're right that, in such instance as above the state's response is "well tough luck". I'm surprised it took 34 pages for a proponent to finally come out and say it.
Pollona wrote:Then, it follows you'd agree that under the former system of express pre-approval (consent), this scenario would never happen.
by Walpurgisnach » Wed Aug 08, 2018 1:35 pm
by Pollona » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:08 pm
The New California Republic wrote:Nope, it'd just be the inverse. The person may have wanted their organs donated, but they never made it known to anyone. It'd end up that the person's views aren't respected, and their bodily sovereignty will be violated by burning or burying their corpse without their organs going to where they wanted them to go to...
The New California Republic wrote:Pollona wrote:At last. We agree then? The state is inevitably going to violate the bodily integrity of some individuals who would not have otherwise consented to have their organs donated, no? You're right that, in such instance as above the state's response is "well tough luck". I'm surprised it took 34 pages for a proponent to finally come out and say it.
The only way you have come to that conclusion is by ignoring the majority of what those 2 paragraphs say. No individuals are having their bodily integrity violated. A corpse doesn't satisfy the conditions for being called an "individual".
by The New California Republic » Wed Aug 08, 2018 2:29 pm
Pollona wrote:I'd hate to let an argument with yourself go to waste. If, as you say, no individuals can have their bodily integrity violated, how could an individual (who wished to have their organs donated but ultimately were not) have their bodily integrity violated under the old system? After all, according to your assertion they were just a corpse, and in your definition a corpse does not satisfy being called an 'individual'.
Pollona wrote:Medical practice is not guided by wish fulfillment: its goal to ensure self-determination. Simply, that a patient's prior consent is given before a proceedure is conducted on them.
Pollona wrote:This is the substantive difference between the old and new system. In your inverse example (the "old way"), an unknown donor's wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided (the "new way"), a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their wishes. In the former system, no one's right to self-determination is in doubt, in the later it most certainly is.
Pollona wrote:But if you decide to go ahead and argue that dead people ("corpses") do not have rights, I'll be happy to refute that premise as many times as necessary.
by Prekonate » Wed Aug 08, 2018 3:07 pm
by United African Confederation » Thu Aug 09, 2018 6:58 am
Fartsniffage wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45056780A new opt-out system for organ donation will be in place by 2020 in England, if Parliament approves "Max's Law".
Under the plans detailed by ministers, adults will be presumed to be organ donors unless they have specifically recorded their decision not to be.
The government said it would save up to 700 lives each year.
In the UK in 2017, 411 people died before the right donor was found, and more than 5,000 people are currently on the waiting list in England.
A similar opt-out system has been in place in Wales since 2015. Scotland plans to introduce a similar scheme and Northern Ireland has also expressed an interest.
I'm honestly amazed it's taken this long for this to become a thing in England. Dead people don't need organs and if they have an issue with donating they can make it clear before they die.
What say you NSG?
by The New California Republic » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:04 am
United African Confederation wrote:In the UAC however all citizens are opted in, unless their religious identity (juju) forbids organ donation. In which case they can opt out.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 09, 2018 7:46 am
Prekonate wrote:...
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Prekonate » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:31 am
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:39 am
Prekonate wrote:I made a measured, cause and effect argument that the act could have wider ramifications on the law. I provided ample evidence to support my position. You're dismissing it as a fallacy because you don't know how to respond to it on its merits, prob because you don't know as much as you think you do.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Prekonate » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:42 am
by Prekonate » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:44 am
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 09, 2018 8:44 am
Prekonate wrote:Both of your other arguments were dismissed in my post
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Pollona » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:42 am
The New California Republic wrote:Pollona wrote:Medical practice is not guided by wish fulfillment: its goal to ensure self-determination. Simply, that a patient's prior consent is given before a proceedure is conducted on them.
Not really. There are many instances whereby medical personnel have to carry out a procedure without consent. A person who is unconscious in a car wreck will not be able to consent to a medical intervention to save their life, for example, but the medical personnel don't wait patiently until they regain consciousness so they can get consent...
The New California Republic wrote:Pollona wrote:This is the substantive difference between the old and new system. In your inverse example (the "old way"), an unknown donor's wishes go unfulfilled, but their bodily integrity was not violated. Under the example I provided (the "new way"), a unknown refusant has their bodily integrity violated against their wishes. In the former system, no one's right to self-determination is in doubt, in the later it most certainly is.
Of course their bodily integrity is violated in the inverse example, something is happening to a part of their body that they don't want, i.e. it is being either burned or buried against their wishes. Self-determination very much is in doubt in the inverse example, as something is happening with their body parts that the person does not wish.
The New California Republic wrote: And what difference does it make anyway? Who is it harming? Is it violating the views of the dead person? They are dead. They have no feelings to hurt. Corpses do not have the same rights as people. Not by a long shot. To infer that a like-for-like bodily sovereignty exists in the same way for both a living person and a corpse is ludicrous . . .
Des-Bal wrote:Prekonate wrote:I made a measured, cause and effect argument that the act could have wider ramifications on the law. I provided ample evidence to support my position. You're dismissing it as a fallacy because you don't know how to respond to it on its merits, prob because you don't know as much as you think you do.
I dismissed it as a fallacy because it's merits are fallacious. Please note that after I pointed out that your entire argument was a fallacy I explained why it fell apart regardless. Your cause does not actually effect your effect and you're presuming a novelty that just doesn't exist here.
by Des-Bal » Thu Aug 09, 2018 9:49 am
Pollona wrote:If an individual, upon regaining their faculties, would have rather preferred death, they can still seek relief under the law and sue their medical practitioners for battery and violating their bodily integrity.
Cekoviu wrote:DES-BAL: Introverted, blunt, focused, utilitarian. Hard to read; not verbose online or likely in real life. Places little emphasis on interpersonal relationships, particularly with online strangers for whom the investment would outweigh the returns.
Desired perception: Logical, intellectual
Public perception: Neutral-positive - blunt, cold, logical, skilled at debating
Mindset: Logos
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:18 am
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
by Western-Ukraine » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:24 am
Factbooks: National Politics
Region: U R N
by Vassenor » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:27 am
Western-Ukraine wrote:It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.
by Western-Ukraine » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:29 am
Vassenor wrote:Western-Ukraine wrote:It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.
Which is why the family has veto rights.
Factbooks: National Politics
Region: U R N
by Spirit of Hope » Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:33 am
Western-Ukraine wrote:It's sickening, no matter the intent. We're above disrespecting the dead who have no way to object or resist, even if those people had the choice to opt out. There are many scenarios where one would not opt out, too many to ignore.
Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Bupkiss, El Lazaro, Eragon Island, Floppa Lovers, Google [Bot], Gorutimania, ImSaLiA, Outer Bratorke, Ravemath, Shrillland, Simonia, Soviet Haaregrad, Uiiop, Washington Resistance Army
Advertisement