"Progressive" Lawmaker Wants Presumed Organ Donation Consent

[WHAMPOM]

The problem is the this law illustrates the fact the "progressives" in government feel entitled to ones organs.

Why should I be suprised, it's not like "progressives" in government don't feel entitled to ones other property 😉

Do you have another after death use for your organs? Sky dinner to feed the sacred vultures?

 

[Corn]

They're not. The "Government" has no interest in your Organs and will not be taking anyone's Organs.

Per the norm, you fail again.

 

[sandorski]

Per the norm, you fail again.

So they got your Organs, what do they do with them?

Me Fail not, but you just have.

 

[nonlnear]

If they switch from an opt-in to and opt-out I will opt-out out of principle. I'm perfectly fine donating when I make the choice to opt-in, but most people don't even read that far. You can say fail all you want on that, but it's true. How many people actually even read the TOS when they install software? Yeah same shit, no one reads that stuff. They fill in the required parts and leave out the optional.

This is the same reason I always vote against the board of directors for any corporation that I have a vote for. I know the vast majority of people simply vote yes because they want to believe that their faith in the nominating committee is well placed. If there happen to be legitimate concerns, the informed objectors have a huge chunk of ignorant yes votes to overcome. A few ignorant no votes helps to even the score in such cases, while not really impacting the outcome when an election is truly uncontested.

Changing the default for organ donation won't alter my answer (yes), because it's not quite the same scenario from a game theoretic perspective. The rightness or wrongness of an overall outcome isn't really at issue, but rather only the individual's preferences. What is really being impacted here is the average outcome from those people who are truly indifferent, lacking in self awareness (regarding their preferences), or simply lazy. Anyone who cares about the answer is not losing anything in this.

 

[StageLeft]

I have no problem with this. Very few people actually consent to organ donation and a great percentage of people who receive organs are not even consenting organ donors (they should obviously be at the very fvcking end of the list, but they aren't). I think this is a good plan.

I hear that statistically doctors spend less time trying to revive people with those organ donor things on their licenses, so no thanks.

If so the physician should not even be aware of whether a person is a donor or not until they croak.

Really this is similar to a will. Without one the government can get more than with one, right?

The default option shouldn't be ANYTHING

Impossible. Either your organs are allowed to be used or not. You're dead, it's too late to ask.

 

[Tristicus]

Impossible. Either your organs are allowed to be used or not. You're dead, it's too late to ask.

No shit Sherlock, did you bother to use your brain a little on that one? Perhaps even read the rest of the post?

 

[Moonbeam]

I heard that in Tibet the monks put their dead our on perches for the vultures. Man oh man, one last flight before you become sugar in the leaves.

 

[CitizenKain]

You guys are so fucking blind to your own idiocy that it's utterly ridiculous.

That is some serious greed, even for a rightwinger. Don't want to help someone even after you die.

 

[bfdd]

This is the same reason I always vote against the board of directors for any corporation that I have a vote for. I know the vast majority of people simply vote yes because they want to believe that their faith in the nominating committee is well placed. If there happen to be legitimate concerns, the informed objectors have a huge chunk of ignorant yes votes to overcome. A few ignorant no votes helps to even the score in such cases, while not really impacting the outcome when an election is truly uncontested.

Changing the default for organ donation won't alter my answer (yes), because it's not quite the same scenario from a game theoretic perspective. The rightness or wrongness of an overall outcome isn't really at issue, but rather only the individual's preferences. What is really being impacted here is the average outcome from those people who are truly indifferent, lacking in self awareness (regarding their preferences), or simply lazy. Anyone who cares about the answer is not losing anything in this.

exactly, good post.