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. |
|
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.This read "we should do A but people would not accept it" |
|
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. |
|
Re: The full full context. Perfect examples
The state owns your organs unless you explicitly opt out
|
|
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 |
|
Re: No, that is *not* how it reads
-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 |
|
Thanks
--
Drew |
|
Uh, no.
Last line. Unless you're deliberately misreading that.
Regards,
-scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |