Organ donation is one of those concepts that really sound good on the surface but at the same time have an incredibly evil side that many never see. Abuses abound around the world from prisoners being executed in china for their organs, kidney sales in India to out right theft of organs right here in the USA.
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Organ donation is one of those concepts that really sound good on the surface but at the same time have an incredibly evil side that many never see. Abuses abound around the world from prisoners being executed in china for their organs, kidney sales in India to out right theft of organs right here in the USA.
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Dave
The main idea of indicating organ donor status on drivers licenses is that most adults have and carry one on their person, and so that medical staff are able to start transplant procedures sooner, in case the donor candidate is unable to communicate after the accident, or his or her family is inaccessible during the short organ viability time window after a fatal accident.
It is irrationally counter-productive and inappropriate to not institute or enhance such a system because of any nebulous fear that it will be abused.
You're probably watching too many horror films, for one thing. It takes a whole movie studio to dream up and fabricate such a sordid scenario. Anyone in the real world insane enough to entertain such acts wouldn't be smart enough or coordinated enough to actually pull off such a dastardly scheme.
Although that seems like an interesting idea, it would not matter one way or another. If someone got into a situation where they needed a donated organ of a particular type, they could opt to donate others..... thereby, using your criterion, becoming eligible.
Sorry, but if you discovered you needed a liver and then added yourself to the donor list, I'd still say you are not eligible. That's like saying You want life insurance after you are diagnosed with a terminal disease - you might want it, but it ain't gonna happen.
You made a choice to not donate - You know the price.
The main idea of indicating organ donor status on drivers licenses is that most adults have and carry one on their person, and so that medical staff are able to start transplant procedures sooner, in case the donor candidate is unable to communicate after the accident, or his or her family is inaccessible during the short organ viability time window after a fatal accident.
usually this is not enough, they still need family permission, so in addition to your drivers license, let you family know you are an organ donor
Organ donation is one of those concepts that really sound good on the surface but at the same time have an incredibly evil side that many never see. Abuses abound around the world from prisoners being executed in china for their organs, kidney sales in India to out right theft of organs right here in the USA.
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Dave
are you for real? you believe everything that is reported
Steak like anything else is good for you in controlled amounts.
Very true, but more importantly and compounding the problem most meat is contaminated with hormones and other known carcinogens and has low nutritional density. I'm not a vegetarian and I wouldn't recommend it at all to most people, but one should consider that you are eating whatever that animal has eaten as well.
I'm recommending that one never put anything in their body that they don't know where it came from or what it fed on. That makes it hard and there are fewer choices, but stick with grass fed beef, buffalo, venison, poultry etc. and specific American farmed fish; Unfortunately, they're even developing GMO salmon now for greater yield. There's an app from the monterey aquarium that helps understand some of this stuff, but it's more written from a healthy fish population perspective than possible contamination perspective. It's hard to find clean seafood these days. The majority of the farmed fish comes from china and breeds that are caught later in their life cycle are heavily contaminated (ex. tuna) thanks to mercury contamination.
I do not mean to imply commonplace, but certainly possible, and similar situations do currently occur. Ya might want to talk to some judges... Ya know, ignorance is bliss -- the legal system is full of unpublished surprises.
Glenn Beck is a bozo and a fake libertarian. I would hue to Ron Paul or John Stossel instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
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 $$ to heaven with you. Give some to sick folks who need it.
One last observation, then I'll leave it be... Before anyone thinks this is a right-wing attack - I happen to think that we should allow folks who want to sell their organs (or part, thereof) to do so. I'm with John Stossel on this. If my kid needed an organ to keep them alive, I'd sell everything I own to give to someone who would donate it - wouldn't anyone? So why should the State ban such kinds of things from going on? Who benefits from the status quo? Who?
No one. That's who.
Dave
Man, people like you that just take take take and NEVER give really make this world a terrible place! Are you going to need it on your new journey? What they should do is show you the person that need one who is kind and gives something back to this world somehow, and how your hater instincts didn't! IMO, people like you shouldn't have even been here in the first place. What a waste of a life force IMO. Oh, and I see... since Jobs worked and earned his money and wants society to come together as a team he should fit the bill right? He's making it known it's ALL our parts to get this thing going. SOCIETY in general!!! It amazes me when people have money others expect they owe everyone something. Go make your own damn $$ and do it then if it's so damn easy to spread the love... again, I doubt you even pet your dog.
Very true, but more importantly and compounding the problem most meat is contaminated with hormones and other known carcinogens and has low nutritional density. I'm not a vegetarian and I wouldn't recommend it at all to most people, but one should consider that you are eating whatever that animal has eaten as well.
I'm recommending that one never put anything in their body that they don't know where it came from or what it fed on. That makes it hard and there are fewer choices, but stick with grass fed beef, buffalo, venison, poultry etc. and specific American farmed fish; Unfortunately, they're even developing GMO salmon now for greater yield. There's an app from the monterey aquarium that helps understand some of this stuff, but it's more written from a healthy fish population perspective than possible contamination perspective. It's hard to find clean seafood these days. The majority of the farmed fish comes from china and breeds that are caught later in their life cycle are heavily contaminated (ex. tuna) thanks to mercury contamination.
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!
Several of the things you've said here are absolutely batshit insane, but I understand that you might believe that so I'll ignore those bits and concentrate mostly on your bad logic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
... prisoners being executed in china for their organs...
Prisoners in China are not "executed for their organs." There is no need to since prisoners give up the right to say no in those situations anyway and there are so many executions in China that organs rom those sources are plentiful. The whole idea of it being organised on the level you imply is just silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
... What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Okay, this is one of those insane parts, but ignoring the idea that groups of nefarious types will be hunting through DMV records for juicy organs, your basic statement here is entirely unsupportable. You previously quoted some (questionable, un-sourced), reports of organ stealing or abuse, then your next sentence is that this indicates the new system will be "exploited massively." This is absolute nonsense. There is no linkage here. Even if everything you say is true, you fail to point out any logical connection or cause and effect between the system changing and the expected "massive exploitation." You can't just say that cause you think it might happen, you have to have a reason to believe so and lay it out for us.
Your only argument seems to be that somehow nefarious types will now "know" who can have their organs harvested or not and that this will lead to greater abuse. This is actually in contradiction to the actual facts. Currently, people are supposed to put that stupid sticker on their card. Anyone finding someone with a sticker can reasonably assume they are an organ donator, cause it's right there in bright orange on the card. The proposal is to make the decision part of the requirement for the licence, and to put it in the DMV database itself. This is both more secret and more secure than the current method.
One can reasonably assume that it will be less likely that some nefarious "organ harvester" will be able to tell if you are a donor or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
... Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license? ...
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!
That's because the whole concept of "nutrient density" is vague (it has three quasi-accepted meanings), and kind of makes it sounds like the food is "bad for you" even though there is no evidence that it is. So it's not only unclear what is meant when people refer to "low nutrient density," it's not even clear that it's actually bad for you.
When you say it though, it certainly sounds like a bad thing, so in my experience, it's mostly a term used by vegans to "diss" meat-eaters. In other words, it's one of the few "smart sounding" things you can say about meat that makes it seem like it's "bad," but it's both vague enough, and technically accurate enough to be hard to argue against.
The proper response to vegans using this argument is simply to roll one's eyes and not say anything. You won't convince them that meat is good for you and they won't convince you that it's bad, so it's best to just move on.
IMO the best rule of thumb for good health and eating is to simply look at the "natural diet" of the closest animals to you in the great chain of life, and imitate that. For us, that's the Chimpanzee. You can't go wrong with millions of years of evolution backing up your choices, but you can go drastically wrong following the latest trend or idea that someone thought up.
I do not mean to imply commonplace, but certainly possible, and similar situations do currently occur. Ya might want to talk to some judges... Ya know, ignorance is bliss -- the legal system is full of unpublished surprises.
Glenn Beck is a bozo and a fake libertarian. I would hue to Ron Paul or John Stossel instead.
Just to lighten the thread a bit, though it's not that funny of a clip...
Sorry, but if you discovered you needed a liver and then added yourself to the donor list, I'd still say you are not eligible. That's like saying You want life insurance after you are diagnosed with a terminal disease - you might want it, but it ain't gonna happen.
You made a choice to not donate - You know the price.
So, just out of spite, you'd either: (i) forego the opportunity to harvest all types of other organs -- heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, etc -- that could benefit other human beings, or (ii) you would harvest it without the person's consent.
So, just out of spite, you'd either: (i) forego the opportunity to harvest all types of other organs -- heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, etc -- that could benefit other human beings, or (ii) you would harvest it without the person's consent.
You realize you have no other choice, right?
Just admit that's nuts, and move along.
I never said that. Not out of spite - you said I don't want to donate. Ok. You are not on the list.
I said, if you don't put yourself on the list to donate, maybe you shouldn't get organs.
Adding yourself later, after you discover you need one shouldn't count. Hey you could offer your organs anyway, which the system would gladly accept - assuming that you were still suitable for donation - generally people needing organs don't make good donors.
But I was silent on what should happen to your organs after you have seen the "light".
Man, people like you that just take take take and NEVER give really make this world a terrible place! Are you going to need it on your new journey? What they should do is show you the person that need one who is kind and gives something back to this world somehow, and how your hater instincts didn't! IMO, people like you shouldn't have even been here in the first place. What a waste of a life force IMO. Oh, and I see... since Jobs worked and earned his money and wants society to come together as a team he should fit the bill right? He's making it known it's ALL our parts to get this thing going. SOCIETY in general!!! It amazes me when people have money others expect they owe everyone something. Go make your own damn $$ and do it then if it's so damn easy to spread the love... again, I doubt you even pet your dog.
You don't know anything about me as a person, yet you comment on me individually.
More on that later...
"Giving" is one of the most satisfying things anyone can do in this life, and I enjoy giving to others as often as I can - even the smallest gestures, a smile, a kind word, a helping hand with no expectation of reciprocity.
And I'm not a "hater" as your (I assume) juvenile analysis told you.
Donating my organs to someone who needs them after I'm dead is not something that I am against at all. I am somewhat ambivalent about it, but my wife is not - she selected "organ donor" on her license, and assures me that she will donate my organs if it is up to her (which it is).
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.
Maybe that sounds harsh to you, since clearly you think that whatever is good for society should be forced on everyone - but ask yourself this question: Who decides what is "best" for society? Maybe right now this attempt by the government (with the approval and support of Mr. Jobs) is something you are in favor of - so bad people like me who object to it are to be demonized - but maybe one day it will be a different societal "need" that you do not agree with.
What happens then? Do you simply follow your own logic and say "if it benefits society then I'll go along with it"? Or will you heartily object, only to be subjected to demonization by its supporters?
As for Steve Jobs and his airplane... Listen, Steve deserves all the money he's got, and nothing I say is going to make him do anything, or influence him in any way. I admire him greatly for so many different reasons that it doesn't harm my assessment of him at all that I disagree with his stance on this particular issue - and I'm sure he doesn't mind me commenting on his jet...
As for my dog, she died last year, and I did pet her often. She was a good dog, and got as much love as any dog could from our family.
Now, re-read your post and grow up. A good rule is not to say anything to someone on the Internet that you wouldn't say to their face. The world is too full of pain and misery to add to it with thoughtless posts on a public forum. It's safe to say we all have different opinions, but yours do not make you a horrible monster or evil person. Just state your case and keep the personal out of it. You will be better for it, I assure you.
This is awesome. His presence will help push this bill thru and it will save many many lives.
No, the bill will not require people to become donors, it will just require the DMV to ask if you want to be a donor. The majority of renewals are also done through the mail, so it won't change much.
Comments
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Dave
Organ donation is one of those concepts that really sound good on the surface but at the same time have an incredibly evil side that many never see. Abuses abound around the world from prisoners being executed in china for their organs, kidney sales in India to out right theft of organs right here in the USA.
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Dave
The main idea of indicating organ donor status on drivers licenses is that most adults have and carry one on their person, and so that medical staff are able to start transplant procedures sooner, in case the donor candidate is unable to communicate after the accident, or his or her family is inaccessible during the short organ viability time window after a fatal accident.
It is irrationally counter-productive and inappropriate to not institute or enhance such a system because of any nebulous fear that it will be abused.
You're probably watching too many horror films, for one thing. It takes a whole movie studio to dream up and fabricate such a sordid scenario. Anyone in the real world insane enough to entertain such acts wouldn't be smart enough or coordinated enough to actually pull off such a dastardly scheme.
Although that seems like an interesting idea, it would not matter one way or another. If someone got into a situation where they needed a donated organ of a particular type, they could opt to donate others..... thereby, using your criterion, becoming eligible.
Sorry, but if you discovered you needed a liver and then added yourself to the donor list, I'd still say you are not eligible. That's like saying You want life insurance after you are diagnosed with a terminal disease - you might want it, but it ain't gonna happen.
You made a choice to not donate - You know the price.
The main idea of indicating organ donor status on drivers licenses is that most adults have and carry one on their person, and so that medical staff are able to start transplant procedures sooner, in case the donor candidate is unable to communicate after the accident, or his or her family is inaccessible during the short organ viability time window after a fatal accident.
usually this is not enough, they still need family permission, so in addition to your drivers license, let you family know you are an organ donor
Organ donation is one of those concepts that really sound good on the surface but at the same time have an incredibly evil side that many never see. Abuses abound around the world from prisoners being executed in china for their organs, kidney sales in India to out right theft of organs right here in the USA.
Many people try to imply that unethical things will never happen in the USA but the reality is entirely different. About a year ago the local news was abuzz for months with a story about illegal harvesting of organs. There are just to many factors involved to assure a completely ethical system. One issue is that many have difficulty facing death. If those people have money and the ability to look the other way they will get what they need.
What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license?
In any event I don't think organ donation is a bad thing but this approach is very much the wrong thing to do to promote it. It implements a system that will be abused without question. It puts an entirely unreasonably requirement on the drivers license. Further it tries to nail down in a binary way something that isn't a yes or no question to many. Like it or not people change and grow, something as personal as the answer to this question should not be currated by the government.
Dave
are you for real? you believe everything that is reported
Steak like anything else is good for you in controlled amounts.
Very true, but more importantly and compounding the problem most meat is contaminated with hormones and other known carcinogens and has low nutritional density. I'm not a vegetarian and I wouldn't recommend it at all to most people, but one should consider that you are eating whatever that animal has eaten as well.
I'm recommending that one never put anything in their body that they don't know where it came from or what it fed on. That makes it hard and there are fewer choices, but stick with grass fed beef, buffalo, venison, poultry etc. and specific American farmed fish; Unfortunately, they're even developing GMO salmon now for greater yield. There's an app from the monterey aquarium that helps understand some of this stuff, but it's more written from a healthy fish population perspective than possible contamination perspective. It's hard to find clean seafood these days. The majority of the farmed fish comes from china and breeds that are caught later in their life cycle are heavily contaminated (ex. tuna) thanks to mercury contamination.
here's some good info...
http://www.westonaprice.org/Environmental-Toxins/
http://wehrintheworld.blogspot.com/2...ancestors.html
http://www.eatwild.com/
That said I'm frankly staggered that most farmed fish for the US comes from China.
Glenn Beck is a bozo and a fake libertarian. I would hue to Ron Paul or John Stossel instead.
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
are you really this ignorant?
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
Man, people like you that just take take take and NEVER give really make this world a terrible place! Are you going to need it on your new journey? What they should do is show you the person that need one who is kind and gives something back to this world somehow, and how your hater instincts didn't! IMO, people like you shouldn't have even been here in the first place. What a waste of a life force IMO. Oh, and I see... since Jobs worked and earned his money and wants society to come together as a team he should fit the bill right? He's making it known it's ALL our parts to get this thing going. SOCIETY in general!!! It amazes me when people have money others expect they owe everyone something. Go make your own damn $$ and do it then if it's so damn easy to spread the love... again, I doubt you even pet your dog.
Very true, but more importantly and compounding the problem most meat is contaminated with hormones and other known carcinogens and has low nutritional density. I'm not a vegetarian and I wouldn't recommend it at all to most people, but one should consider that you are eating whatever that animal has eaten as well.
I'm recommending that one never put anything in their body that they don't know where it came from or what it fed on. That makes it hard and there are fewer choices, but stick with grass fed beef, buffalo, venison, poultry etc. and specific American farmed fish; Unfortunately, they're even developing GMO salmon now for greater yield. There's an app from the monterey aquarium that helps understand some of this stuff, but it's more written from a healthy fish population perspective than possible contamination perspective. It's hard to find clean seafood these days. The majority of the farmed fish comes from china and breeds that are caught later in their life cycle are heavily contaminated (ex. tuna) thanks to mercury contamination.
here's some good info...
http://www.westonaprice.org/Environmental-Toxins/
http://wehrintheworld.blogspot.com/2...ancestors.html
http://www.eatwild.com/
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!
... prisoners being executed in china for their organs...
Prisoners in China are not "executed for their organs." There is no need to since prisoners give up the right to say no in those situations anyway and there are so many executions in China that organs rom those sources are plentiful. The whole idea of it being organised on the level you imply is just silly.
... What this indicates is that California is heading in the direction of implementing a system that will be exploited massively. Especially if the DMV records where to become public knowledge. You might not notice at first but may see an uptick in the deaths of young healthy people.
Okay, this is one of those insane parts, but ignoring the idea that groups of nefarious types will be hunting through DMV records for juicy organs, your basic statement here is entirely unsupportable. You previously quoted some (questionable, un-sourced), reports of organ stealing or abuse, then your next sentence is that this indicates the new system will be "exploited massively." This is absolute nonsense. There is no linkage here. Even if everything you say is true, you fail to point out any logical connection or cause and effect between the system changing and the expected "massive exploitation." You can't just say that cause you think it might happen, you have to have a reason to believe so and lay it out for us.
Your only argument seems to be that somehow nefarious types will now "know" who can have their organs harvested or not and that this will lead to greater abuse. This is actually in contradiction to the actual facts. Currently, people are supposed to put that stupid sticker on their card. Anyone finding someone with a sticker can reasonably assume they are an organ donator, cause it's right there in bright orange on the card. The proposal is to make the decision part of the requirement for the licence, and to put it in the DMV database itself. This is both more secret and more secure than the current method.
One can reasonably assume that it will be less likely that some nefarious "organ harvester" will be able to tell if you are a donor or not.
... Which brings up an interesting issue, if you are a young person, in good health do you really want your donor status to be known in such a public manner as a tick on your drivers license? ...
It already is (see above).
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!
That's because the whole concept of "nutrient density" is vague (it has three quasi-accepted meanings), and kind of makes it sounds like the food is "bad for you" even though there is no evidence that it is. So it's not only unclear what is meant when people refer to "low nutrient density," it's not even clear that it's actually bad for you.
When you say it though, it certainly sounds like a bad thing, so in my experience, it's mostly a term used by vegans to "diss" meat-eaters. In other words, it's one of the few "smart sounding" things you can say about meat that makes it seem like it's "bad," but it's both vague enough, and technically accurate enough to be hard to argue against.
The proper response to vegans using this argument is simply to roll one's eyes and not say anything. You won't convince them that meat is good for you and they won't convince you that it's bad, so it's best to just move on.
IMO the best rule of thumb for good health and eating is to simply look at the "natural diet" of the closest animals to you in the great chain of life, and imitate that. For us, that's the Chimpanzee. You can't go wrong with millions of years of evolution backing up your choices, but you can go drastically wrong following the latest trend or idea that someone thought up.
I do not mean to imply commonplace, but certainly possible, and similar situations do currently occur. Ya might want to talk to some judges... Ya know, ignorance is bliss -- the legal system is full of unpublished surprises.
Glenn Beck is a bozo and a fake libertarian. I would hue to Ron Paul or John Stossel instead.
Just to lighten the thread a bit, though it's not that funny of a clip...
Sorry, but if you discovered you needed a liver and then added yourself to the donor list, I'd still say you are not eligible. That's like saying You want life insurance after you are diagnosed with a terminal disease - you might want it, but it ain't gonna happen.
You made a choice to not donate - You know the price.
So, just out of spite, you'd either: (i) forego the opportunity to harvest all types of other organs -- heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, etc -- that could benefit other human beings, or (ii) you would harvest it without the person's consent.
You realize you have no other choice, right?
Just admit that's nuts, and move along.
Paranoia is its own reward.
His cup runneth over.
His cup runneth over.
And spilleth in our laps.
So, just out of spite, you'd either: (i) forego the opportunity to harvest all types of other organs -- heart, lungs, kidneys, eyes, etc -- that could benefit other human beings, or (ii) you would harvest it without the person's consent.
You realize you have no other choice, right?
Just admit that's nuts, and move along.
I never said that. Not out of spite - you said I don't want to donate. Ok. You are not on the list.
I said, if you don't put yourself on the list to donate, maybe you shouldn't get organs.
Adding yourself later, after you discover you need one shouldn't count. Hey you could offer your organs anyway, which the system would gladly accept - assuming that you were still suitable for donation - generally people needing organs don't make good donors.
But I was silent on what should happen to your organs after you have seen the "light".
I'm listed as a donor though.
Man, people like you that just take take take and NEVER give really make this world a terrible place! Are you going to need it on your new journey? What they should do is show you the person that need one who is kind and gives something back to this world somehow, and how your hater instincts didn't! IMO, people like you shouldn't have even been here in the first place. What a waste of a life force IMO. Oh, and I see... since Jobs worked and earned his money and wants society to come together as a team he should fit the bill right? He's making it known it's ALL our parts to get this thing going. SOCIETY in general!!! It amazes me when people have money others expect they owe everyone something. Go make your own damn $$ and do it then if it's so damn easy to spread the love... again, I doubt you even pet your dog.
You don't know anything about me as a person, yet you comment on me individually.
More on that later...
"Giving" is one of the most satisfying things anyone can do in this life, and I enjoy giving to others as often as I can - even the smallest gestures, a smile, a kind word, a helping hand with no expectation of reciprocity.
And I'm not a "hater" as your (I assume) juvenile analysis told you.
Donating my organs to someone who needs them after I'm dead is not something that I am against at all. I am somewhat ambivalent about it, but my wife is not - she selected "organ donor" on her license, and assures me that she will donate my organs if it is up to her (which it is).
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.
Maybe that sounds harsh to you, since clearly you think that whatever is good for society should be forced on everyone - but ask yourself this question: Who decides what is "best" for society? Maybe right now this attempt by the government (with the approval and support of Mr. Jobs) is something you are in favor of - so bad people like me who object to it are to be demonized - but maybe one day it will be a different societal "need" that you do not agree with.
What happens then? Do you simply follow your own logic and say "if it benefits society then I'll go along with it"? Or will you heartily object, only to be subjected to demonization by its supporters?
As for Steve Jobs and his airplane... Listen, Steve deserves all the money he's got, and nothing I say is going to make him do anything, or influence him in any way. I admire him greatly for so many different reasons that it doesn't harm my assessment of him at all that I disagree with his stance on this particular issue - and I'm sure he doesn't mind me commenting on his jet...
As for my dog, she died last year, and I did pet her often. She was a good dog, and got as much love as any dog could from our family.
Now, re-read your post and grow up. A good rule is not to say anything to someone on the Internet that you wouldn't say to their face. The world is too full of pain and misery to add to it with thoughtless posts on a public forum. It's safe to say we all have different opinions, but yours do not make you a horrible monster or evil person. Just state your case and keep the personal out of it. You will be better for it, I assure you.
Dave.
This is awesome. His presence will help push this bill thru and it will save many many lives.
No, the bill will not require people to become donors, it will just require the DMV to ask if you want to be a donor. The majority of renewals are also done through the mail, so it won't change much.