The point that I was making in my post is that I object to the State (the government) mandating that I declare a choice either way. It is none of their business, really. "Collective good" or not.
I don't understand your objection to being asked a question or how would you propose it was handled if there was system in place to allow a deceased person to donate their organs. Do you also propose that the government not regulate the quality of medical care facilities or personal, let the free market completely work it out? I'd ask about how you feel about stem cells so we can potentially forego orgnan donorship altogether but that crosses into one of those danger zone topics.
It's hard to put into words how offensive I find your position. You are actively denying innocent people your organs because there is a small chance you might save a prisoner's life. And you're acting as if you're hurting the state with your protest when you're in fact hurting sick people. Jerk.
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
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.
There is no cure for pancreatic cancer. He didn't beat it, which is why he needed the organ transplant. It is just being controlled.
Everyone in CA that has a driver's license is familiar with the organ donation program. It is included with EVERY DMV license renewal. This law would just require the DMV employee to ASK if you want to be an organ donor if you are obtaining a license for the first time or renewing at the DMV office. Since almost all license renewals are done through the mail, the card with the organ donor application will still be included with the renewal paperwork.
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
Okay, you have honed your mores to extend life to others with finer granularity, and therefore find this offensive. Of course, with similar granularity, die of natural causes could mean no health treatment whatsoever. But understand that for many, pro-life means that one is non-judgmentally committed for life for all people; poor, wealthy, pregnant, not-pregnant ? regardless of color, race, sex, religion, or crime committed.
Everyone in CA that has a driver's license is familiar with the organ donation program. It is included with EVERY DMV license renewal. This law would just require the DMV employee to ASK if you want to be an organ donor if you are obtaining a license for the first time or renewing at the DMV office. Since almost all license renewals are done through the mail, the card with the organ donor application will still be included with the renewal paperwork.
Not exactly. I found the language of the actual bill and posted it back at the beginning of this thread. The difference between the current process and the new one (if the legislation passes) is Californians will then be asked at renewal time if they want to be on the registry. Currently you are only asked if you want to be considered a donor. The new thing is the registry, which evidently makes it easier to match donors with needy people.
And of course it also means that the demons will creep into your house in the dead of night and steal your spleen, but that's not in the legislation. They're never going tell us about that.
And of course it also means that the demons will creep into your house in the dead of night and steal your spleen, but that's not in the legislation. They're never going tell us about that.
In my best Eric Cartman impersonation, "Those BASTARDS!"
Is California making a mistake by adopting "mandated decision," requiring people to declare one way or the other at the DMV? According to a colleague who is a medical director for a transplantation program, similar legislation has been done before in Texas and Virginia. Unfortunately, two years after passage in the mid-90s, they repealed the law. The truth of the matter is that the consent rate had dropped precipitously after adopting a mandated decision. Apparently, residents of TX & VA resented being told that had to make a decision they didn't want (or weren't ready) to make, and answered "No" in droves. Will the same thing happen again in CA? While I applaud CA's desire to increase donation rates and to save lives, one has to wonder why they have chosen to present legislation that has been counterproductive in the past. Without better public education messages, I fear "mandated decision" will not succeed in CA. Undoubtedly, we all are happy Steve Jobs is still alive and interested in helping the liver donation cause. Maybe it would be wiser for him to create a fund for research on the topic of increasing donation rates, and piloting public education programs to facilitate change. Supporting legislation that has failed in the past is not like Jobs, and I am surprised he has decided to support legislation that may actually cause donation rates to drop.
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
What's truly awful is how a pro-profit health care system distorts the principle behind the Hippocratic oath: it's a Doctor (and by virtue a medical systems) duty to help everyone in medical need, yes, including a murderer or child rapist. This principle is so far removed in the U.S. that it's understandable that you'd feel that way hillstones, but understand that any system that asks a Doctor to make medical decisions on any moralistic grounds and NOT on medical need is fundamentally flawed.
Make truly awful prisoners live a tortuously long life; it's worth every penny, and cheaper than the death penalty (unless your content with a justice system like in China without any repeals).
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
There is no cure for pancreatic cancer. He didn't beat it, which is why he needed the organ transplant. It is just being controlled.
Wrong. He had an exceptionally rare treatable form of Pancreatic cancer. The vast majority don't live longer than 5 years.
I live in California. There use to be a pink sticker (dot that said donor) that you put on your driviers license. I am a donor and the licenses that they issue now have the pink donor dot printed on it. Either you are a donor and have the dot on your license or you are not a donor and they do not print the dot. Pretty simple.
Still, the family has the option of saying yes or no to the hospital regarding organ donations....
There is only one reason there is a black market for human components. People will pay for them. And not just organs but bones as well. Legitimate medical companies do get human bone material from illegal sources to make bone grafting material. Funeral directors have been found guilty of removing human parts and selling them. To think that it doesn't exist is just naive.
TIGERS are pretty strong for eating things that have no nutritional value he he... if you can go whoop a meat eating tiger I'll believe that statement. It's protein man!
can you read? I said that i don't recommend vegetarian diets at all. Humans are OMNIVORES. what I said is that most meat today is crap mixed with fillers and contaminated with steroids and or carcinogens compared to game meat or grass fed alternatives. Idiot.
I don't understand your objection to being asked a question or how would you propose it was handled if there was system in place to allow a deceased person to donate their organs. Do you also propose that the government not regulate the quality of medical care facilities or personal, let the free market completely work it out? I'd ask about how you feel about stem cells so we can potentially forego orgnan donorship altogether but that crosses into one of those danger zone topics.
Beyond minimum quality standards (FDA approval for drugs, certification of hospitals, credentials and licenses of doctors) no, I don't believe the government should interfere with the Free Market.
Let me give you an example: Dr. A and Dr. Z go to Med School together. Both receive Diploma's, both take the License Exam, and both are granted MD's and Licenses to practice medicine in the State.
Both study Cardiology, but Dr. Z is just better at it than Dr. A. Dr. A meets all competency requirements and makes a fine surgeon, but Dr. Z is just a whiz at it. He can save even the sickest of patients.
According to both the Insurance Companies and the Government, both deserve the same compensation. The insurance companies because they are cheap and don't want to pay more for Dr. Z, and the Government because awarding someone more pay based on Merit is anathema to our modern way of thinking (I call this the "every kid gets a trophy" phenomena).
The truth is, Dr. Z deserves more than Dr. A. In a Free Market, he should get to charge more for his services. The Government should have NO SAY how much compensation he is allowed to collect.
Is that "fair" under the Socialist ideology? No. Because the additional lives Dr. Z can save should not be determined by their ability to pay (all lives are equal under this view). Whereas the true Capitalist viewpoint is that market forces should dictate what Dr. Z can get (your life is worth whatever you think it is, provided you've got the means to back that belief up).
This is representative of the case in point: In the analysis of the "greater good" by many, they find it impossible to imagine that doing what they consider the "right thing" is less evil than reducing the rights of others in the process. If it's right to make everyone designate their preference vis-a-vis organ donation in order to secure a drivers license, why isn't it right to force Dr. Z to operate on everyone, regardless of their ability to pay in order to maintain his medical license?
Yes, one is more extreme than the other, but that is intentional for illustrative purposes - for where do you draw the line? Where do you stop the State from going after this?
Rather than go on and on (because there are just so many examples that one could look at in this type of analysis), I'll move to the next subject you raise - Stem Cells.
I am all in favor of Stem Cell research. If it is legal for a woman to abort a fetus, then the fetus has no legal standing. That is, for the moment, settled law (regardless of which side you're on, just follow me for a minute). This is just another way of saying that the woman owns the fetus. She can have the clinic dispose of it, she could probably have it put in a jar to be placed on her mantle if she was so grotesquely inclined.
This also means that she could donate it for stem-cell harvesting.
I would take it one step farther, since I already brought up Capitalism - if it is true that a woman owns the fetus she carries, and may, if she so decides, terminate it's life, then there should be no reason why she couldn't sell it to the highest bidder. Regardless of how repugnant we all may find this, in a true free market, there would be nothing to stop her from doing so (some men sell their sperm, after all, don't they?).
It is not the job of the Government to stand in the way of a Free Market. Given the means (stem cells) there could be hundreds if not thousands of potential disease cures discovered by scientists - scientists who not only hope to find a cures for diseases to help mankind, but to also turn a hefty profit too.
So, to answer your question, I most definitely support Stem Cell research.
The Free Market is not the only answer - we've got 200 years of history to show that NO regulation doesn't work either - but over regulation leads to stagnation, and that is a sure way to ruin our way of life and stifle the one thing that makes this country great - innovation motivated by the potential for profit.
And here's a Free Market idea for handling the Organ Donor conundrum: Why not let people sign up for the Organ Donor Registry voluntarily, and allow them to pledge their organs in exchange for $10,000 (or some such amount of money) paid to their families if their organs are indeed used? You want more people to pledge their organs? That is a sure-fire way to do it. And you don't need the Government to tell anyone what they must do in the process.
Comments
The point that I was making in my post is that I object to the State (the government) mandating that I declare a choice either way. It is none of their business, really. "Collective good" or not.
I don't understand your objection to being asked a question or how would you propose it was handled if there was system in place to allow a deceased person to donate their organs. Do you also propose that the government not regulate the quality of medical care facilities or personal, let the free market completely work it out? I'd ask about how you feel about stem cells so we can potentially forego orgnan donorship altogether but that crosses into one of those danger zone topics.
It's hard to put into words how offensive I find your position. You are actively denying innocent people your organs because there is a small chance you might save a prisoner's life. And you're acting as if you're hurting the state with your protest when you're in fact hurting sick people. Jerk.
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
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.
There is no cure for pancreatic cancer. He didn't beat it, which is why he needed the organ transplant. It is just being controlled.
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
Okay, you have honed your mores to extend life to others with finer granularity, and therefore find this offensive. Of course, with similar granularity, die of natural causes could mean no health treatment whatsoever. But understand that for many, pro-life means that one is non-judgmentally committed for life for all people; poor, wealthy, pregnant, not-pregnant ? regardless of color, race, sex, religion, or crime committed.
Everyone in CA that has a driver's license is familiar with the organ donation program. It is included with EVERY DMV license renewal. This law would just require the DMV employee to ASK if you want to be an organ donor if you are obtaining a license for the first time or renewing at the DMV office. Since almost all license renewals are done through the mail, the card with the organ donor application will still be included with the renewal paperwork.
Not exactly. I found the language of the actual bill and posted it back at the beginning of this thread. The difference between the current process and the new one (if the legislation passes) is Californians will then be asked at renewal time if they want to be on the registry. Currently you are only asked if you want to be considered a donor. The new thing is the registry, which evidently makes it easier to match donors with needy people.
And of course it also means that the demons will creep into your house in the dead of night and steal your spleen, but that's not in the legislation. They're never going tell us about that.
...
And of course it also means that the demons will creep into your house in the dead of night and steal your spleen, but that's not in the legislation. They're never going tell us about that.
In my best Eric Cartman impersonation, "Those BASTARDS!"
Well, I'd prefer a system where those who opt to not donate their organs - are not eligible to get donated organs.
Some people are willing to take, take, take but never give.
I agree TOTALLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I find it offensive that you are in support of taxpayers paying for an organ transplant surgery for a prisoner with a life sentence. Prisoners don't have health insurance! Taxpayers pay for it! A prisoner serving a life sentence should die of natural causes, which includes organ failure. The taxpayers should not have to pay more to keep a prisoner alive longer than necessary. I am sure a victim's family would be incredibly offended to find out YOUR organ saved the life of a dying murderer in prison.
What's truly awful is how a pro-profit health care system distorts the principle behind the Hippocratic oath: it's a Doctor (and by virtue a medical systems) duty to help everyone in medical need, yes, including a murderer or child rapist. This principle is so far removed in the U.S. that it's understandable that you'd feel that way hillstones, but understand that any system that asks a Doctor to make medical decisions on any moralistic grounds and NOT on medical need is fundamentally flawed.
Make truly awful prisoners live a tortuously long life; it's worth every penny, and cheaper than the death penalty (unless your content with a justice system like in China without any repeals).
There is no cure for pancreatic cancer. He didn't beat it, which is why he needed the organ transplant. It is just being controlled.
Wrong. He had an exceptionally rare treatable form of Pancreatic cancer. The vast majority don't live longer than 5 years.
Still, the family has the option of saying yes or no to the hospital regarding organ donations....
There is only one reason there is a black market for human components. People will pay for them. And not just organs but bones as well. Legitimate medical companies do get human bone material from illegal sources to make bone grafting material. Funeral directors have been found guilty of removing human parts and selling them. To think that it doesn't exist is just naive.
TIGERS are pretty strong for eating things that have no nutritional value he he... if you can go whoop a meat eating tiger I'll believe that statement. It's protein man!
can you read? I said that i don't recommend vegetarian diets at all. Humans are OMNIVORES. what I said is that most meat today is crap mixed with fillers and contaminated with steroids and or carcinogens compared to game meat or grass fed alternatives. Idiot.
I don't understand your objection to being asked a question or how would you propose it was handled if there was system in place to allow a deceased person to donate their organs. Do you also propose that the government not regulate the quality of medical care facilities or personal, let the free market completely work it out? I'd ask about how you feel about stem cells so we can potentially forego orgnan donorship altogether but that crosses into one of those danger zone topics.
Beyond minimum quality standards (FDA approval for drugs, certification of hospitals, credentials and licenses of doctors) no, I don't believe the government should interfere with the Free Market.
Let me give you an example: Dr. A and Dr. Z go to Med School together. Both receive Diploma's, both take the License Exam, and both are granted MD's and Licenses to practice medicine in the State.
Both study Cardiology, but Dr. Z is just better at it than Dr. A. Dr. A meets all competency requirements and makes a fine surgeon, but Dr. Z is just a whiz at it. He can save even the sickest of patients.
According to both the Insurance Companies and the Government, both deserve the same compensation. The insurance companies because they are cheap and don't want to pay more for Dr. Z, and the Government because awarding someone more pay based on Merit is anathema to our modern way of thinking (I call this the "every kid gets a trophy" phenomena).
The truth is, Dr. Z deserves more than Dr. A. In a Free Market, he should get to charge more for his services. The Government should have NO SAY how much compensation he is allowed to collect.
Is that "fair" under the Socialist ideology? No. Because the additional lives Dr. Z can save should not be determined by their ability to pay (all lives are equal under this view). Whereas the true Capitalist viewpoint is that market forces should dictate what Dr. Z can get (your life is worth whatever you think it is, provided you've got the means to back that belief up).
This is representative of the case in point: In the analysis of the "greater good" by many, they find it impossible to imagine that doing what they consider the "right thing" is less evil than reducing the rights of others in the process. If it's right to make everyone designate their preference vis-a-vis organ donation in order to secure a drivers license, why isn't it right to force Dr. Z to operate on everyone, regardless of their ability to pay in order to maintain his medical license?
Yes, one is more extreme than the other, but that is intentional for illustrative purposes - for where do you draw the line? Where do you stop the State from going after this?
Rather than go on and on (because there are just so many examples that one could look at in this type of analysis), I'll move to the next subject you raise - Stem Cells.
I am all in favor of Stem Cell research. If it is legal for a woman to abort a fetus, then the fetus has no legal standing. That is, for the moment, settled law (regardless of which side you're on, just follow me for a minute). This is just another way of saying that the woman owns the fetus. She can have the clinic dispose of it, she could probably have it put in a jar to be placed on her mantle if she was so grotesquely inclined.
This also means that she could donate it for stem-cell harvesting.
I would take it one step farther, since I already brought up Capitalism - if it is true that a woman owns the fetus she carries, and may, if she so decides, terminate it's life, then there should be no reason why she couldn't sell it to the highest bidder. Regardless of how repugnant we all may find this, in a true free market, there would be nothing to stop her from doing so (some men sell their sperm, after all, don't they?).
It is not the job of the Government to stand in the way of a Free Market. Given the means (stem cells) there could be hundreds if not thousands of potential disease cures discovered by scientists - scientists who not only hope to find a cures for diseases to help mankind, but to also turn a hefty profit too.
So, to answer your question, I most definitely support Stem Cell research.
The Free Market is not the only answer - we've got 200 years of history to show that NO regulation doesn't work either - but over regulation leads to stagnation, and that is a sure way to ruin our way of life and stifle the one thing that makes this country great - innovation motivated by the potential for profit.
And here's a Free Market idea for handling the Organ Donor conundrum: Why not let people sign up for the Organ Donor Registry voluntarily, and allow them to pledge their organs in exchange for $10,000 (or some such amount of money) paid to their families if their organs are indeed used? You want more people to pledge their organs? That is a sure-fire way to do it. And you don't need the Government to tell anyone what they must do in the process.
Maybe i should run for President....
Dave.