Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?

Kramodlog · Jun 30, 2015

Umbran said:
Only to a degree. The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.

I am merely saying I am not comfortable with the precedent.

Come on. Try it. All the cool nations are doing it. Like Austria. You're not going to say Austria ain't cool, now are you? Austria gave us Vienna, Conchita Wurst and Hitl... Never mind.

Estate taxes aren't a flat commandeering of assets - they are a tax, and the estate gets to choose what gets liquidated to pay them, which keeps it from being an imposition on property rights. And they don't generally apply to assets transferred to your spouse, and the Federal version doesn't apply if your estate is under $5+ million dollars.

That 5 million is an aberration to discuss for another thread, but yeah, there is a legal frame around estate taxes. It isn't like there wouldn't be one around organs.

Honestly, this seems like reflexive USian cultural distrust toward guvernment more than anything else.

Kramodlog · Jun 30, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
Problem here with opt-out: not everyone has or is even eligible to have "the card" in question. (In the USA, it is usually part of the driver's license or state-issue ID card.) Die without the relevant ID, a child not in the presence of guardians, or if you are somehow not immediately identifiable, etc., and the state can harvest your organs- remember, time is critical, so the state will be in a hurry.

If this is against your faith or you are not a resident of the country, the state has just interfered with your religious practices at a VERY key point or has harvested organs from someone who didn't have a say at all in the decision.

Cue the massive lawsuits.

So why not have the law say you cannot harvest organs if someone doesn't have "the" card on them? Honestly, that is just one more argument for a nation wide USian voter card.

And with present day technology, this sort of argument seems outdated.

Kramodlog · Jun 30, 2015

Umbran said:
Sometimes, it can be. But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy". It is the opposite of sloppy. And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.

But ain't that the reasoning behind "If gays can get married, why not polygamist, zoophiles and the dreaded pedophiles!?".

Umbran · Jun 30, 2015

goldomark said:
Come on. Try it. All the cool nations are doing it. Like Austria. You're not going to say Austria ain't cool, now are you? Austria gave us Vienna, Conchita Wurst and Hitl... Never mind.

That 5 million is an aberration to discuss for another thread, but yeah, there is a legal frame around estate taxes. It isn't like there wouldn't be one around organs.

And, interestingly, those who have $5 million+ for estates question the tax as an imposition, even with the legal framework. The real point to it was about property rights - unless you don't pay, the government cannot order you to pay your taxes with any specific piece of property.

Honestly, this seems like reflexive USian cultural distrust toward guvernment more than anything else.

It isn't reflexive. It is considered. There's lots of places where I quite accept government action - I wouldn't mind some sensible gun-control laws, for example. This is not one that I think is a great idea. It isn't like I'd start claiming I'd move to Canada over it, but I don't like the principle.

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 30, 2015

goldomark said:
So why not have the law say you cannot harvest organs if someone doesn't have "the" card on them?

That makes it functionally equivalent to a less efficient version of the status quo- no need to change the law.

a nation wide USian voter card.

Doesn't cover minors and assorted otherwise qualified- and potentially willing- nonvoters.

(Now that I'm no longer at the grocery...)

It also doesn't mesh well with the current political atmosphere in which voter suppression tactics are being used to purge the rolls.

It doesn't mesh well with decisions regarding those with a legal inability to consent or deny.

Umbran · Jul 1, 2015

goldomark said:
But ain't that the reasoning behind "If gays can get married, why not polygamist, zoophiles and the dreaded pedophiles!?".

That's the claimed reason. However, as Danny and I and others have noted, those things do not, and cannot, follow as part of the current law.

Nobody has done that for my suggestion yet. The defense has been, "Nobody would allow that to happen," as if we are all that good at forbidding things happening

Umbran · Jul 1, 2015

Dannyalcatraz said:
Doesn't cover minors and assorted otherwise qualified- and potentially willing- nonvoters.

Minors have people who are legally responsible for them that make that decision for them.

I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea. Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 1, 2015

Umbran said:
Minors have people who are legally responsible for them that make that decision for them.

Right.

My point was that in an opt-out system, the default would be you could harvest the organs of deceased minors & incompetents without the input of their legal guardians. Presumably, to avoid this, the law would be drafted to require consent of a guardian in those cases.

...which is the default position in the current opt-in system. So why change?

Umbran said:
I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea. Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.

It doesn't persuade me, either.

Morrus · Jul 1, 2015

Umbran said:
I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea. Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.

What, and then you'll enact the appropriate laws?

Dannyalcatraz · Jul 1, 2015

No question it would increase the amount of organs available.

The question is would it do so by a significant enough of a margin to outweigh the inevitable unintentional screw-ups and deliberate malfeasance.

Considering what I know of the current medical/legal system in the USA, my bet would be "no."

Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Umbran

Mod Squad

Umbran

Mod Squad

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Morrus

Well, that was fun

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator

Similar Threads