A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
I hope Jobs donates abundant time on his Gulfstream to fly people out to their transplants in situations like that, for starters. (Of course, he'll have to compensate Apple for the time used).
Indeed, even better, he should buy and run a couple of planes like that just for people in that type of situation.
------
Quote from article:
Schwarzenegger said. "Then we had great phone conversations back and forth. ... He knew that others don't have a plane waiting for them to get to a transplant."
I would never presume that Steve Jobs NEEDS to do anything he doesn't want to, but his getting involved in this matter is probably the best thing he's ever done that will benefit others with no direct compensation for himself.
Yep, like prisoners serving life sentences. I stopped being an organ donor years ago in protest because they give prisoners, even ones serving life sentences, organ transplants.
Until California changes the law to allow potential donors to specify their organs not go to prisoners, I will not be a donor.
-kpluck
I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.
Jobs, who six years ago also beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor [...]
But why would Steve Jobs need a liver transplant if he "beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer"???
Could it be that the cancer spread in the 9 months he waited for the first surgery, leading to a second surgery some 15-18 months later and, finally, a third surgery for a liver transplant?
Was cancer caused by the LSD and other illegal drugs Steve Jobs took in his twenties?
I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
Some day I hope you're wrongly convicted and have to eat your words, because only a complete fool and a barbarian would put as much faith in the perfection of the legal system as you do.
Before everyone goes all ga-ga about how great this LAW is - think about it for a second.
Who is the State to MANDATE that you even make a choice??
How about adding a check-box which says "ask my wife"...?
How about "none of your damned business"?
What amazes me is that everyone seems to think that it's OK to force people to declare anything either way. My organs are mine, and I have the right to be ambivalent about whether or not I want to donate them to another. I may not want to donate them today, but may change my mind tomorrow - or I may want to leave it up to my family to decide. Who knows?
The point being - the government has no right to compel me to state what I want done either way.
Jobs is a great guy - I'm very glad he got his liver - but he (like so many others these days) sees no problem with government intruding in areas that are none of their business.
Dave predicts: If this law passes, it gets overturned by the Supreme Court one day.
BTW: I agree with the poster who said that Jobs should loan out his Jet for people who need transplants. His reaction is unfortunately like many rich liberals - they see a need for something, and rather than put their own fortune at risk, they decide to try and influence government to make the rest of us go along with it. Here's one area, Steve, where you should maybe be a bit more like Bill Gates. You aren't taking any of those $$ to heaven with you. Give some to sick folks who need it.
One last observation, then I'll leave it be... Before anyone thinks this is a right-wing attack - I happen to think that we should allow folks who want to sell their organs (or part, thereof) to do so. I'm with John Stossel on this. If my kid needed an organ to keep them alive, I'd sell everything I own to give to someone who would donate it - wouldn't anyone? So why should the State ban such kinds of things from going on? Who benefits from the status quo? Who?
No one. That's who.
Dave
Great post! Someone not deluded by the subject matter who can objectively state reality! The states have no right to ask and they never should!
This is how it starts. Soon, you'll be auto-enrolled and instead and have to go through a lengthy opt-out process if you don't wish to be on "The Registry"... The registry, how nice Another database to catalog to the public in, this one making you a target for powerful sick people.
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
So what about the people in prison who evaded paying taxes or got caught with a joint? They deserve your Nazi death camp fate?
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz
This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.
I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"
I should be able to sell my blood and organs. You want my liver? Pay my family for it.
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Absolutely. I can't even imagine the whirlwind: knowing you're dying, then getting that phone call saying a lifesaving organ is available & you'll need major surgery within the next few hours. Yikes!!!
Perhaps a little part of Apple's cash reserve could go into starting a medical technologies department (with emphasis on transplants).
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"
Look at it this way: such a program would give the government a default power to remove your organs upon your death. Scary, no?
In the terrible moments after an accident, a person's ID is often unavailable. What does Uncle Sam do then, assume yes and take that person's organs, despite what their wishes may actually be?
If someone wants to give their organs, that's certainly their right. But they should have to very specifically opt into it.
No big applause from me. Sorry Steve, but if you were really that grateful you'd spend a fraction your own damned billions to help others. That's called compassion and selflessness. Maybe your time in India was too far gone to remember what it means to be a Buddhist.
So, I am to assume that because Steve has not called and cleared it with you (or given you an update on what he spends his $$'s on) that he is doing nothing?
Get the chip off your shoulder and move on to something positive - sounds to me like he has done something positive here. Kudos for that! Don't assume the negative just because YOU DON'T KNOW.
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Try it out? Nope. Next in line please.
You see, someone else will always want good organs. If you want to put all kinds of conditions on it, we'll just move to the next highest bidder. It's capitalism. In a tight market, the highest bidder accepting the terms of sale wins (or buys).
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Hey that's what you get when you buy used Besides I thought that ALL organs came from little old ladies that walked to church on Sundays - none of those fast living young things there son!
Comments
I hope Jobs donates abundant time on his Gulfstream to fly people out to their transplants in situations like that, for starters. (Of course, he'll have to compensate Apple for the time used).
Indeed, even better, he should buy and run a couple of planes like that just for people in that type of situation.
------
Quote from article:
Schwarzenegger said. "Then we had great phone conversations back and forth. ... He knew that others don't have a plane waiting for them to get to a transplant."
I would never presume that Steve Jobs NEEDS to do anything he doesn't want to, but his getting involved in this matter is probably the best thing he's ever done that will benefit others with no direct compensation for himself.
Perhaps a little part of Apple's cash reserve could go into starting a medical technologies department.
Yep, like prisoners serving life sentences. I stopped being an organ donor years ago in protest because they give prisoners, even ones serving life sentences, organ transplants.
Until California changes the law to allow potential donors to specify their organs not go to prisoners, I will not be a donor.
-kpluck
I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.
Jobs, who six years ago also beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor [...]
But why would Steve Jobs need a liver transplant if he "beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer"???
Could it be that the cancer spread in the 9 months he waited for the first surgery, leading to a second surgery some 15-18 months later and, finally, a third surgery for a liver transplant?
Was cancer caused by the LSD and other illegal drugs Steve Jobs took in his twenties?
So many questions, so little answers.
I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
Some day I hope you're wrongly convicted and have to eat your words, because only a complete fool and a barbarian would put as much faith in the perfection of the legal system as you do.
Before everyone goes all ga-ga about how great this LAW is - think about it for a second.
Who is the State to MANDATE that you even make a choice??
How about adding a check-box which says "ask my wife"...?
How about "none of your damned business"?
What amazes me is that everyone seems to think that it's OK to force people to declare anything either way. My organs are mine, and I have the right to be ambivalent about whether or not I want to donate them to another. I may not want to donate them today, but may change my mind tomorrow - or I may want to leave it up to my family to decide. Who knows?
The point being - the government has no right to compel me to state what I want done either way.
Jobs is a great guy - I'm very glad he got his liver - but he (like so many others these days) sees no problem with government intruding in areas that are none of their business.
Dave predicts: If this law passes, it gets overturned by the Supreme Court one day.
BTW: I agree with the poster who said that Jobs should loan out his Jet for people who need transplants. His reaction is unfortunately like many rich liberals - they see a need for something, and rather than put their own fortune at risk, they decide to try and influence government to make the rest of us go along with it. Here's one area, Steve, where you should maybe be a bit more like Bill Gates. You aren't taking any of those $$ to heaven with you. Give some to sick folks who need it.
One last observation, then I'll leave it be... Before anyone thinks this is a right-wing attack - I happen to think that we should allow folks who want to sell their organs (or part, thereof) to do so. I'm with John Stossel on this. If my kid needed an organ to keep them alive, I'd sell everything I own to give to someone who would donate it - wouldn't anyone? So why should the State ban such kinds of things from going on? Who benefits from the status quo? Who?
No one. That's who.
Dave
Great post! Someone not deluded by the subject matter who can objectively state reality! The states have no right to ask and they never should!
This is how it starts. Soon, you'll be auto-enrolled and instead and have to go through a lengthy opt-out process if you don't wish to be on "The Registry"... The registry, how nice Another database to catalog to the public in, this one making you a target for powerful sick people.
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.
Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.
Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
So what about the people in prison who evaded paying taxes or got caught with a joint? They deserve your Nazi death camp fate?
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.
I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"
I should be able to sell my blood and organs. You want my liver? Pay my family for it.
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Absolutely. I can't even imagine the whirlwind: knowing you're dying, then getting that phone call saying a lifesaving organ is available & you'll need major surgery within the next few hours. Yikes!!!
Perhaps a little part of Apple's cash reserve could go into starting a medical technologies department (with emphasis on transplants).
The iScalpel.
No incising and suturing
No camera
Originally Posted by boboosta
A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"
Look at it this way: such a program would give the government a default power to remove your organs upon your death. Scary, no?
In the terrible moments after an accident, a person's ID is often unavailable. What does Uncle Sam do then, assume yes and take that person's organs, despite what their wishes may actually be?
If someone wants to give their organs, that's certainly their right. But they should have to very specifically opt into it.
No big applause from me. Sorry Steve, but if you were really that grateful you'd spend a fraction your own damned billions to help others. That's called compassion and selflessness. Maybe your time in India was too far gone to remember what it means to be a Buddhist.
So, I am to assume that because Steve has not called and cleared it with you (or given you an update on what he spends his $$'s on) that he is doing nothing?
Get the chip off your shoulder and move on to something positive - sounds to me like he has done something positive here. Kudos for that! Don't assume the negative just because YOU DON'T KNOW.
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Try it out? Nope. Next in line please.
You see, someone else will always want good organs. If you want to put all kinds of conditions on it, we'll just move to the next highest bidder. It's capitalism. In a tight market, the highest bidder accepting the terms of sale wins (or buys).
It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.
Dave
It's unethical to put them in prison with a place to live, feed them, give them counseling, whatever job may they have in there, etc.?
Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
Hey that's what you get when you buy used