regulatory tsar, "Sate owns you organs"

Post #315,551 by boxley 10/13/09 10:26:04 AM Reply	regulatory tsar, "Sate owns you organs" and to save scott some time http://mediamatters....arch/200909100053 Sunstein and Thaler did say it is "not impossible to defend the routine removal of organs even from living patients with certain hopeless conditions on the basis that the state owns the organs." poor people at media matters have to do cartwheels to try to ignore what was plainly and clearly written. Buncha fuckin commies in DC
Post #315,554 by malraux 10/13/09 11:02:09 AM Reply	WTF? Are you deliberately ignoring the context? I don't exactly call it "cartwheels" when someone is quoted out of context as saying "A", but they really said "you could argue for A, but I don't think it's right". Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #315,556 by boxley 10/13/09 11:08:59 AM Reply	full context The most aggressive approach, which is more than a default rule, is called routine removal. Under this regime, the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission. Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend. In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life. Although this approach is not used comprehensively by any state, many states do use the rule for corneas (which can be transplanted to give some blind patients sight). In some states, medical examiners performing autopsies are permitted to remove corneas without asking anyone's permission. Where this rule has been used, the supply of corneal transplants has increased dramatically. In Georgia, routine removal increased the number of corneal transplants from twenty-five in 1978 to more than one thousand in 1984. The widespread practice of routine removal of kidneys would undoubtedly prevent thousands of premature deaths, but many people would object to a law that allows government to take parts of people's bodies when they have not agreed, in advance to the taking. Such an approach violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies. (Page 177). This read "we should do A but people would not accept it"
Post #315,560 by Another Scott 10/13/09 11:22:03 AM Reply	The full full context. http://nudges.wordpr...-organ-donations/ http://www.nytimes.c.../27view.html?_r=1 (AFAIK, Thaler is the one who's written these sections on organ donation. Thaler is Sunstein's co-author on Nudge.) They don't think every organ belongs to the state... :-/ Cheers, Scott.
Post #315,562 by boxley 10/13/09 11:24:40 AM Reply	Re: The full full context. Perfect examples The state owns your organs unless you explicitly opt out
Post #315,563 by drook 10/13/09 11:25:07 AM 10/13/09 11:26:16 AM Reply	No, that is not how it reads Legitimate science depends on discussing all options. The only two places where I see any mention of what "should" be done are the phrases "may sound grotesque" and "violates a generally accepted principle". That sounds more like "should not". === Dammit, how did this forum show up? Can anyone tell me how to set the timestamp for "Mark Read"? -- Drew Edited by drook Oct. 13, 2009, 11:26:16 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #315,566 by mvitale 10/13/09 11:29:40 AM Reply	Re: No, that is not how it reads I think this is what you're looking for: http://iwt.mikevital...amp=1999999999999 -Mike "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1759 Historical Review of Pennsylvania
Post #315,568 by drook 10/13/09 11:37:51 AM Reply	Thanks -- Drew
Post #315,567 by malraux 10/13/09 11:31:57 AM Reply	Uh, no. Last line. Unless you're deliberately misreading that. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #315,565 by crazy 10/13/09 11:29:10 AM Reply	Oh, BS Your cartwheels is the context. And the context was someone was listing a variety of possibilities. At the very far end, he said: "not impossible to defend" that particular option. Hey, it's not impossible to defend my assumption that you are "xxx". List you worst case scenario of what you wouldn't want to be accused of. Based on my interaction with you, I'd say you are a "xxx". Ok, so this guy is listing the variety of ways people might increase the organ supply. And this IS an option that is not impossible to defend. I could defend it. Take a guy on a respirator for years. No family. No one taking responsibility for him. He's been brain dead the whole time, no recognizable signals for years. Someone makes the decision to pull the plug. Who? Who knows. Maybe the nursing home he was dumped into years ago. Someone manages to get a court order to pull the plug. The plug is being pulled no matter what. Now what? He's got a good liver, lungs, and a bunch of other stuff that will save a dozen people. He's never made his preference known. Who owns that body at that point, and who gets to make decisions? I can see many slippery slopes, so don't bother pointing them out. Make this particular decision. What do we do with the body? Give it to a medical school? Burn it? Bury it? And no matter what you with the body, you are making the same decisions. Does it matter if the decisions are made 10 seconds before final death, as opposed to 10 seconds after? Now, look at the room filled with people with various conditions that will kill them. Pieces of this guy can save them. Will you be ignoring them during your decision process?
Post #315,723 by crazy 10/16/09 10:35:57 AM Reply	No response I see Glass houses and rocks and all that.
Post #315,725 by boxley 10/16/09 10:50:14 AM Reply	Didnt know you really wanted an answer same reason you dont harvest organs from the executed in china, its rude
Post #315,728 by crazy 10/16/09 10:55:15 AM Reply	Nice try No slippery slope please. The exact decision process if possible. Including viewpoints across the board. For this situation, not any others.
Post #315,731 by boxley 10/16/09 11:12:58 AM Reply	okay, keep him hooked up until he passes by himself if he has not hinted, given, wrote down any wishes then his parts are his not yours or the State. Cannibalization doesnt begin until after death in most polite civilizations. I have my wishes written down with a do not recessitate or feed order just water and no organ harvesting but thats just me.
Post #315,733 by crazy 10/16/09 11:53:15 AM Reply	Hmm Are they allowed to harvest organs (or other parts) after death?
Post #315,747 by boxley 10/16/09 4:30:55 PM Reply	well, some places make soup corneas skin bone etc can be used post mortem but most soft tissue like innard etc dont do well thanx, bill
Post #315,749 by pwhysall 10/16/09 6:54:50 PM Reply	Define "death" Ref: beating heart cadavers.
Post #315,763 by boxley 10/17/09 11:06:05 AM Reply	Re: Define "death" where you dont get sued for sending them to the morgue
Post #315,767 by crazy 10/17/09 2:06:09 PM Reply	It's the killer, isn't it? I didn't want to know. I was asking Box for his opinion based in that magical line in the sand and didn't want that focus. Yet. Ok Box, from your perspective, various pieces of the body are up for grabs at that magical moment, and none of them are before then. Since time is of these essence, and the previous answer means nothing in the context of when the decision must be made, please give a bit more. What is death? I'm going to run with some assumptions I have of you. You believe in some type of afterlife, you believe in the concept of the spirit (not going to define that one) leaving the body, and going somewhere. Right? You also believe in the possibility of people in near death experiences leaving the body, looking down, watching, etc. Right? At the moment the person (note that the person is no longer defined as the body, but the leaving spirit), is that person dead? Not "near dead", but dead. Or is it some other aspect?
Post #315,773 by boxley 10/17/09 5:10:31 PM Reply	death is not defined by the dead, but the living I remember I had a conversation with a friend about taking a bad stroke and being semi vegetative but with a non working body, I would prefer a pillow to the face, my bud wanted the veg fed and cared for until decomposition was well set in. Its not easily defineable,
Post #315,591 by Silverlock 10/13/09 9:36:01 PM Reply	Sloppy even for you "Sate"? Really? You manage to capitalize the s but forget the following t? Cripes. (I don't know why boxlish irks me so much, and I've tried to stop commenting on it, but, ... c'mon.)
Post #315,604 by boxley 10/14/09 8:25:49 AM Reply	eyes are going south

Welcome to IWETHEY!