NationStates

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:How are people's civil rights being violated?

A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And they can do so. They can opt out.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

Nobody's arguing that? People can opt out.

USS Monitor wrote:

Walpurgisnach wrote:
Does the fact that lives are at stake allow us to violate people's civil rights?

The dead don't care because they are dead, so this is pretty low priority as a civil rights issue. If someone is bothered by the idea while they're still alive, they have the chance to do something about it and opt out.

"The dead don't care because they are dead" is an argument for necrophilia. I don't want anybody having sex with my dead corpse. Do I have to opt-out of that?

Ifreann wrote:Why should people have to give consent for what is done with their own bodies instead of it being assumed?

Given that the people in question will be dead,

Irrelevant.

that assuming their consent will see their organs used to save lives instead of feeding worms,

They have never given consent in life, ergo you cannot assume consent is given at all. Consent has to be explicitly given.

why should consent need to be given instead of assumed?

"She didn't say yes, but she also didn't say no, so it's okay that I assumed she wanted the D".

Just make organ donation mandatory.

His Excellence wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

Nobody's arguing that? People can opt out.

This very thread's posters for this proves you otherwise.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:You know, I find it interesting how the same people who hold pregnancies as the prerogative of the subject who is pregnant are now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

It’s funny also because I’ve been told in abortion threads that there are laws in place saying I don’t have to give my kidney even if the other person is dying. And then people defended those laws. All of a sudden the same crowd is saying, “BUT YOU HAVE TO.”

Me? I don’t see a problem with the law. But consistency is consistency. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’.

Walpurgisnach wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:How are people's civil rights being violated?

It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

You know that doctors already assume consent in some cases, yeah?

---

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:How are people's civil rights being violated?

A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And if they'd rather not donate their organs, they can opt-out.

Neutraligon wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And they can do so. They can opt out.

Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

His Excellence wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

Nobody's arguing that?

That is exactly what people are arguing in order to justify overriding given consent for what happens to one's own body.

Neutraligon wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And they can do so. They can opt out.

They shouldn't have to "opt out". The default position, from a consent perspective, is to assume that one does not have consent unless it is affirmatively given. You shouldn't have to "opt out" of having your organs harvested any more than you should have to "opt out" of having your corpse subjected to sexual intercourse. In both cases, the default position should be to assume that no consent exists unless it has been affirmatively given.

Ifreann wrote:

Walpurgisnach wrote:
It is not up to the government to decide what happens to your body after you die. People have the right to determine what happens to their body after they die. If you can assume consent for organ harvesting, you may as well assume consent for sexual intercourse. From a rights perspective, this is equivalent to necrophilia.

You know that doctors already assume consent in some cases, yeah?

---

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And if they'd rather not donate their organs, they can opt-out.

It's a retarded way to do it, when you opt out.

Making it an opt-out makes it a rather stupid policy with a lot of bad moral quandaries as a result.

Neutraligon wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
A person's body, in life, remains for the person to state what they want for their bodies to happen after death.

It's their body, hence it is their choice as to how their body is to be used, or not used.

And they can do so. They can opt out.

But what if they don’t make their wishes known on paper before they die? “Whoops, your fault, I’m taking your organs.” What happened to clear consent?

Napkiraly wrote:

His Excellence wrote:Nobody's arguing that?

That is exactly what people are arguing in order to justify overriding given consent for what happens to one's own body.

Consent is consent, until people start saying it’s not.

In one token, I understand that organs are needed and the idea behind, once your dead you no longer have a need of those organs and can be transplanted into a person who is in need.
The other token I have an issue with, is the idea that somehow a govt has a right to dictate the removal of a dead person's organs as if they were property.

With that said, I have signed up to be an organ donor.

Luminesa wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:You know, I find it interesting how the same people who hold pregnancies as the prerogative of the subject who is pregnant are now arguing that the dignity of a dead person who wishes in life not to be desecrated is irrelevant just because they are dead.

It’s funny also because I’ve been told in abortion threads that there are laws in place saying I don’t have to give my kidney even if the other person is dying. And then people defended those laws. All of a sudden the same crowd is saying, “BUT YOU HAVE TO.”

Me? I don’t see a problem with the law. But consistency is consistency. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’.

Agreed, this inconsistency actually is bothersome.

Mostly because this means people are okay with assuming consent unless it is things people consider personal, and that is inconsistent and, frankly, quite hypocritical.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:This very thread's posters for this proves you otherwise.

Many posters are directly mentioning that the opt out system makes it okay in their view, and the wording of the OP makes it reasonable to assume such a system is standard.

If you don't like the system that's fine, feel free to disagree, but you seem to be putting words in peoples' mouths to make claims like that. It's certainly far less fucked up than the necrophilia comparisons.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Neutraligon wrote:And they can do so. They can opt out.

Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

THere is a reason I said that if they do this the method of opting out has to be free, highly advertised and easily accessed.

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:

Luminesa wrote:It’s funny also because I’ve been told in abortion threads that there are laws in place saying I don’t have to give my kidney even if the other person is dying. And then people defended those laws. All of a sudden the same crowd is saying, “BUT YOU HAVE TO.”

Me? I don’t see a problem with the law. But consistency is consistency. Let your ‘yes’ be ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ be ‘no’.

Agreed, this inconsistency actually is bothersome.

Mostly because this means people are okay with assuming consent unless it is things people consider personal, and that is inconsistent and, frankly, quite hypocritical.

Thank you.

Grinning Dragon wrote:In one token, I understand that organs are needed and the idea behind, once your dead you no longer have a need of those organs and can be transplanted into a person who is in need.
The other token I have an issue with, is the idea that somehow a govt has a right to dictate the removal of a dead person's organs as if they were property.

With that said, I have signed up to be an organ donor.

I have yet to do so myself, but I do donate blood as often as I can. Once I actually get my license I’ll probably do so.

Luminesa wrote:

Grinning Dragon wrote:In one token, I understand that organs are needed and the idea behind, once your dead you no longer have a need of those organs and can be transplanted into a person who is in need.
The other token I have an issue with, is the idea that somehow a govt has a right to dictate the removal of a dead person's organs as if they were property.

With that said, I have signed up to be an organ donor.

I have yet to do so myself, but I do donate blood as often as I can. Once I actually get my license I’ll probably do so.

I can't legally donate blood, to lightweight.

Ifreann wrote:

Napkiraly wrote:That doesn't justify this law. As an organ donor, I have chosen my body to be used as such if anything unfortunate has happened. Consent should be given, not assumed.

Why?

Bodily autonomy. Same reason consent shouldn't be assumed in sex.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/busi ... 7view.html

Note that this story is from 2009, so their data is out of date.

Consider the difference in consent rates between two similar countries, Austria and Germany. In Germany, which uses an opt-in system, only 12 percent give their consent; in Austria, which uses opt-out, nearly everyone (99 percent) does.

That alone kind of settles the issue for me.

Neutraligon wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

THere is a reason I said that if they do this the method of opting out has to be free, highly advertised and easily accessed.

The economic aspects are wholly irrelevant to me (I understand that this applies to both of you). I wouldn't support an "opt-out" program even if it could be done instantaneously, because that is just not how consent works. We do not assume that somebody has given consent unless stated otherwise. We wait until we have affirmative consent. An "opt-out" program just reverses the proper direction of consent. I don't have to "opt-out" of not being subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Those who would make sexual advances on me have to get my affirmative consent first.

Neutraligon wrote:

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Opting out is pretty dumb for this to be fair.

Not many people have the time, or the money, to want to go through many legal problems, particularly when it comes to their death wishes being respected.

Opting in is the better way to go about organ donations, because there are no moral quandaries based on class. In this effect, you are essentially giving license to desecrate the poor's death wishes.

THere is a reason I said that if they do this the method of opting out has to be free, highly advertised and easily accessed.

And the person is mandated by law to write down their wishes before they potentially die in some accident, and we’re left with situations in which the person never explicitly gave permission for people to use their organs.