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.
Trust me on this. Once you're dead, you won't have much to say about the matter anyway so why not give up your spleen, stomach or spinal fluid to someone who's hungry?
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!
You know, we're getting very close to an eBay-like situation.
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.
I guess I do not see how you are giving the government "default power." You seem to be implying that, in some cases, no decision has been made by the driver. But, the proposed bill ensures that the driver does make a decision. That is, the DMV official says, "If you do not want to donate your organs, then check the box that says 'I do not want to donate my organs." Would it satisfy you if the DMV said, "Check the box if you do not want to donate your organs or if you are unsure?"
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.
Obviously you didn't read my post where I admitted that it was not his responsibility to make donations public and that I was wrong.
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 don't know the numbers here but if I had to guess......for every prisoner you denied an organ you would probably be denying 50 ordinary citizens. Good work.
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.
Since when was LSD linked to cancer? He went to India and took LSD. He wasn't a drug addict.
You had me in paragraph one and then lost me with paragraph two. Your suggestion has an eery similarity to China's "organ vans". Taking advantage of someone desperate for money is never a good thing wether they consent or not. Sometimes it's "your" (the sick person in this case) responsibility to do the right thing.
On another note, I have a problem helping out people who simply can't take care of themselves or have already lived a "full" life. It wasn't that long ago 60 was old, really old and the average lifespan was 50. My advice, drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight, eat whole foods, stay away from poisons (Drugs, smoking and processed foods) and toxic ingredients and the chances of having cancer or organ failure drop dramatically. Especially these days, most of us don't work in hazardous jobs anymore.
Now if someone needs an organ because of an accident or injury then I'd be happy to help, especially someone under the age of 50, but unless I have the option to dictate that I don't want to donate my organs to go to a 60 year old codger who for all practical purposes has already lived a "full" life and simply couldn't take care of themselves, then I would never donate an organ. Why would I want to extend my kindness or compassion to someone without any vision or understanding for the consequences of their selfish actions? How does that make the world a better place?
This is system set up by the wealthy bureaucrats (taking advantage of bleeding heart liberals who truly think they are doing the right thing) to take advantage of the less fortunate. Eat like crap, do drugs, poison your body and don't care about it because some poor sap will be there to give you a new organ, because your entitled to live "forever" based on your stature. Forget it! That's just selfish. You wonder who else might be on those waiting lists?
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.
I hate to classify millions of people into a group, but why do baby boomers always strike me as "the most selfish generation"? "The greatest generation" my ass.
I'm willing to hear other arguments and admit that I'm wrong, but I need a cogent argument and not just an opinion.
I'm with you on the importance of making yourself the healthiest you can be often through avoiding so many of the easy foods and choices. Some great research by the WHO into cancer supports your comments. The one bit I didn't quite understand though was the "drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight". What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
Perhaps something like this...
Quote:
The bodies "Thirst Reflex" is the last signal of excessive dehydration. By the time you become thirsty, the damage has already been done. Don't wait until you're thirsty! Constantly drink throughout the day! How much water should I drink? The non-active individual needs 1/2 oz. per pound of bodyweight, per day. For the average American who weighs 160 lbs. that comes to ten 8oz. glasses per day. This is just an average; you'll need to adjust these numbers to your activity level, environment, bodyweight, and diet.
I would simply like to be able to leave specific instructions with my wife, kids, lawyer or an individual with power of attorney to make the decision based on my wishes. All of the technology that surrounds us these days should make this fairly practical, even if I have to fill out a questionnaire or leave some other documentation behind. It should not be a blanket policy, yes or no. Just my opinion and fortunately there are about 6 billion of us and the vast majority would probably disagree with me.
You're on the right track with power of attorney. The names vary a bit depending on location but you can already issue a power of attorney which ought have that very effect.
This might not be the most reliable source or up-to-date document, but it seems to outline the basic idea.
I guess I do not see how you are giving the government "default power."
I'm reading it as "We'll take your kidneys unless you tell us otherwise".
As I said above, often times a deceased person's identity isn't immediately known (the same period in which the decision to transplant must be made). If there isn't a card immediately available that says to NOT take organs, does the government assume "yes" and take them anyway? Or do they hold off until an answer is known, with the risk of it being too late?
Quote:
Originally Posted by boboosta
You seem to be implying that, in some cases, no decision has been made by the driver. But, the proposed bill ensures that the driver does make a decision. That is, the DMV official says, "If you do not want to donate your organs, then check the box that says 'I do not want to donate my organs." Would it satisfy you if the DMV said, "Check the box if you do not want to donate your organs or if you are unsure?"
Isn't that a rather personal spot-decision to make at the DMV desk?
Anyway, I never did like the idea of donor stickers (either to donate or not) for ID's. Seems like they're too prone to damage or falling off. There's gotta be a better way (ahem, Apple?).
How about adding a check-box which says "ask my wife"...?
How about "none of your damned business"?
Because asking your wife is too late; the article explains that it was only possible for SJ because he had access to a flight right away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck
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.
How many prisoners get organs against the huge number of innocent people who get them? I think nearly everyone would understand your sentiments but potentially withholding my organs from someone really deserving is more concerning than someone undeserving getting them.
----
The bottom line is there aren't enough organ donors around and we all like to think we would pay/do whatever it would take to get an organ for a loved one. Quite simply the organs won't be available unless we all positively support a much wider acceptance of organ donation whatever it might me. SJ loaning out his jet doesn't generate organs; making people make the simple choice does.
----
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Alright people, this is getting too far away from iPad discussion!
Is the cancer centre who seems to own www.ipad.com related in any way to Jobs' previous illness? It would be nice gesture of Apple to make a big payment to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre to buy the ipad.com domain.
Like it's been said, a drivers license is a privilege and not a right. If they wanted to mandate something like this they could, and if you don't agree with it then you don't have to get or renew your license, if it passes. The question already exists, but as it stands you don't have to answer it. If you don't answer it then you are regarded as a 'no' already. "Forcing" you to answer no under this law would make no difference as your answer is the same. Simply 'making' you pencil in a circle to select 'no' through this law is no different.
If you change your mind you can add a donor sticker to your license or change it with the DMV. If you don't, then nothing is ever assumed and they won't try to take your organs. However, if you are "in the system" as yes, then doctors can use that information in the event of your death to see if you match anyone who needs an organ.
If you want to be specific about your organs then you can do that! State no with the DMV, and write a will or leave instructions with your family in writing. However, your family can chose to ignore that and not disclose that info and if you were to die in a crash (as opposed to be sustained through life support) then that information might not be readily available to someone in need.
The choice is still there though. No one is taking that away. Choose to drive without a license if you don't agree. You could do that. Sure you'll get in trouble, but it's still your choice.
Just because (they may) make this a law, doesn't mean it's suddenly some slippery slope towards total state/government control. If you think that then you are brainwashed or simply uneducated. That term is called a fallacy for a reason.
Steve Jobs didn't have to do anything about this. He chose to. That doesn't mean he's less of a person because he's not sharing his riches and flying people around in his jet. He worked hard to get where he is today and he owes you all nothing. Even though he may be worth however many millions or billions doesn't mean he has that sitting in the bank. It's money in property and stocks and bonds and whatnot. Just because he went this far doesn't mean he needs to take the next step and the next and the next and start giving away money to anyone. If you think that then your too stupid or jealous to think of a good reason to oppose his stance.
I mean really, people. This is not some plan to steal your organs or a plot to take away your freedom. You can ALWAYS move to a different state if you don't agree with the laws here. No one is forcing you to stay. All this would do is make people think about their decision for more than a second in order to establish the donor database to hopefully make it quicker for those in need to get help. If you don't like it, don't do it. End of story.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
I see your shift has stated. It must suck to work on Saturdays.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Dear TS - Eat crow and get back to your senses. The AI world is not interested in your drivel that you conjured up while banned. A lot of us want you to shut up about iPads, glossy screens, multitasking, and rest of your blather already.
Comments
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.
Trust me on this. Once you're dead, you won't have much to say about the matter anyway so why not give up your spleen, stomach or spinal fluid to someone who's hungry?
Hey that's what you get when you buy used
You know, we're getting very close to an eBay-like situation.
Bidding closes in 4 days, or Buy It Now.
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.
I guess I do not see how you are giving the government "default power." You seem to be implying that, in some cases, no decision has been made by the driver. But, the proposed bill ensures that the driver does make a decision. That is, the DMV official says, "If you do not want to donate your organs, then check the box that says 'I do not want to donate my organs." Would it satisfy you if the DMV said, "Check the box if you do not want to donate your organs or if you are unsure?"
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.
Obviously you didn't read my post where I admitted that it was not his responsibility to make donations public and that I was wrong.
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 don't know the numbers here but if I had to guess......for every prisoner you denied an organ you would probably be denying 50 ordinary citizens. Good work.
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.
Since when was LSD linked to cancer? He went to India and took LSD. He wasn't a drug addict.
You had me in paragraph one and then lost me with paragraph two. Your suggestion has an eery similarity to China's "organ vans". Taking advantage of someone desperate for money is never a good thing wether they consent or not. Sometimes it's "your" (the sick person in this case) responsibility to do the right thing.
On another note, I have a problem helping out people who simply can't take care of themselves or have already lived a "full" life. It wasn't that long ago 60 was old, really old and the average lifespan was 50. My advice, drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight, eat whole foods, stay away from poisons (Drugs, smoking and processed foods) and toxic ingredients and the chances of having cancer or organ failure drop dramatically. Especially these days, most of us don't work in hazardous jobs anymore.
Now if someone needs an organ because of an accident or injury then I'd be happy to help, especially someone under the age of 50, but unless I have the option to dictate that I don't want to donate my organs to go to a 60 year old codger who for all practical purposes has already lived a "full" life and simply couldn't take care of themselves, then I would never donate an organ. Why would I want to extend my kindness or compassion to someone without any vision or understanding for the consequences of their selfish actions? How does that make the world a better place?
This is system set up by the wealthy bureaucrats (taking advantage of bleeding heart liberals who truly think they are doing the right thing) to take advantage of the less fortunate. Eat like crap, do drugs, poison your body and don't care about it because some poor sap will be there to give you a new organ, because your entitled to live "forever" based on your stature. Forget it! That's just selfish. You wonder who else might be on those waiting lists?
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.
I hate to classify millions of people into a group, but why do baby boomers always strike me as "the most selfish generation"? "The greatest generation" my ass.
I'm willing to hear other arguments and admit that I'm wrong, but I need a cogent argument and not just an opinion.
I'm with you on the importance of making yourself the healthiest you can be often through avoiding so many of the easy foods and choices. Some great research by the WHO into cancer supports your comments. The one bit I didn't quite understand though was the "drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight". What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
Perhaps something like this...
The bodies "Thirst Reflex" is the last signal of excessive dehydration. By the time you become thirsty, the damage has already been done. Don't wait until you're thirsty! Constantly drink throughout the day! How much water should I drink? The non-active individual needs 1/2 oz. per pound of bodyweight, per day. For the average American who weighs 160 lbs. that comes to ten 8oz. glasses per day. This is just an average; you'll need to adjust these numbers to your activity level, environment, bodyweight, and diet.
(source)
I would simply like to be able to leave specific instructions with my wife, kids, lawyer or an individual with power of attorney to make the decision based on my wishes. All of the technology that surrounds us these days should make this fairly practical, even if I have to fill out a questionnaire or leave some other documentation behind. It should not be a blanket policy, yes or no. Just my opinion and fortunately there are about 6 billion of us and the vast majority would probably disagree with me.
You're on the right track with power of attorney. The names vary a bit depending on location but you can already issue a power of attorney which ought have that very effect.
This might not be the most reliable source or up-to-date document, but it seems to outline the basic idea.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14974958...or-Health-Care
Alright people, this is getting too far away from iPad discussion!
It never was an iPad discussion. It's the iPancreas thread.
Perhaps something like this...
Thank you kindly. Just did the calcs and filled up with some more!
I guess I do not see how you are giving the government "default power."
I'm reading it as "We'll take your kidneys unless you tell us otherwise".
As I said above, often times a deceased person's identity isn't immediately known (the same period in which the decision to transplant must be made). If there isn't a card immediately available that says to NOT take organs, does the government assume "yes" and take them anyway? Or do they hold off until an answer is known, with the risk of it being too late?
You seem to be implying that, in some cases, no decision has been made by the driver. But, the proposed bill ensures that the driver does make a decision. That is, the DMV official says, "If you do not want to donate your organs, then check the box that says 'I do not want to donate my organs." Would it satisfy you if the DMV said, "Check the box if you do not want to donate your organs or if you are unsure?"
Isn't that a rather personal spot-decision to make at the DMV desk?
Anyway, I never did like the idea of donor stickers (either to donate or not) for ID's. Seems like they're too prone to damage or falling off. There's gotta be a better way (ahem, Apple?).
It never was an iPad discussion. It's the iPancreas thread.
could have gone either way, i suppose! so it's actually somewhat on topic?
How about adding a check-box which says "ask my wife"...?
How about "none of your damned business"?
Because asking your wife is too late; the article explains that it was only possible for SJ because he had access to a flight right away.
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.
How many prisoners get organs against the huge number of innocent people who get them? I think nearly everyone would understand your sentiments but potentially withholding my organs from someone really deserving is more concerning than someone undeserving getting them.
----
The bottom line is there aren't enough organ donors around and we all like to think we would pay/do whatever it would take to get an organ for a loved one. Quite simply the organs won't be available unless we all positively support a much wider acceptance of organ donation whatever it might me. SJ loaning out his jet doesn't generate organs; making people make the simple choice does.
----
Alright people, this is getting too far away from iPad discussion!
Is the cancer centre who seems to own www.ipad.com related in any way to Jobs' previous illness? It would be nice gesture of Apple to make a big payment to the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre to buy the ipad.com domain.
Like it's been said, a drivers license is a privilege and not a right. If they wanted to mandate something like this they could, and if you don't agree with it then you don't have to get or renew your license, if it passes. The question already exists, but as it stands you don't have to answer it. If you don't answer it then you are regarded as a 'no' already. "Forcing" you to answer no under this law would make no difference as your answer is the same. Simply 'making' you pencil in a circle to select 'no' through this law is no different.
If you change your mind you can add a donor sticker to your license or change it with the DMV. If you don't, then nothing is ever assumed and they won't try to take your organs. However, if you are "in the system" as yes, then doctors can use that information in the event of your death to see if you match anyone who needs an organ.
If you want to be specific about your organs then you can do that! State no with the DMV, and write a will or leave instructions with your family in writing. However, your family can chose to ignore that and not disclose that info and if you were to die in a crash (as opposed to be sustained through life support) then that information might not be readily available to someone in need.
The choice is still there though. No one is taking that away. Choose to drive without a license if you don't agree. You could do that. Sure you'll get in trouble, but it's still your choice.
Just because (they may) make this a law, doesn't mean it's suddenly some slippery slope towards total state/government control. If you think that then you are brainwashed or simply uneducated. That term is called a fallacy for a reason.
Steve Jobs didn't have to do anything about this. He chose to. That doesn't mean he's less of a person because he's not sharing his riches and flying people around in his jet. He worked hard to get where he is today and he owes you all nothing. Even though he may be worth however many millions or billions doesn't mean he has that sitting in the bank. It's money in property and stocks and bonds and whatnot. Just because he went this far doesn't mean he needs to take the next step and the next and the next and start giving away money to anyone. If you think that then your too stupid or jealous to think of a good reason to oppose his stance.
I mean really, people. This is not some plan to steal your organs or a plot to take away your freedom. You can ALWAYS move to a different state if you don't agree with the laws here. No one is forcing you to stay. All this would do is make people think about their decision for more than a second in order to establish the donor database to hopefully make it quicker for those in need to get help. If you don't like it, don't do it. End of story.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
I see your shift has stated. It must suck to work on Saturdays.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Dear TS - Eat crow and get back to your senses. The AI world is not interested in your drivel that you conjured up while banned. A lot of us want you to shut up about iPads, glossy screens, multitasking, and rest of your blather already.