Imperator_DK said:
if you're mentally unable to make and cummunicate decisions on your own, then the current legal order assign you a legal guardian to make those choices for you (usually a parent or close relative)
I didn't say that. I said unable to make the necessary requisites to fill in the opt out. NOT to be able to make the decision.
I was referring to the right of the person who donated the organs to have them used as (s)he intended. Surely this person have as much right that his organs be used in accordance with his choice as the one who chose they should remain in his corpse has?
Not the argument. That's current procedure.
Not answered whether she is more important yet.
It should be clear from my stance that I consider the living more important than the dead.
And fetus's? When does live begin? Equally, why can't corpses be fed to tigers, as I alleged to earlier?
Still, a shot at life is better than death. It's an inherently positive factor.
I'll come back to this.
Being a Virgin Mother of Eight. I assume you picked that label for a reason.
I don't think being a mother is a medical condition.
Of course, virgins are seldom mothers, but seldom are they pregnant either, so there's no indication of pregnancy present.
I seriously think you need to talk to Mothers about complications of birth on their health. Without accounting for age or personal consent.
But that's no need to condemn non-donators for manslaughter, is it?
Nope, but it's a reason to remedy the situation. That something isn't exactly unethical - but merely ethically neutral - hardly preclude that you can establish a system serving another, ethical purpose.
Again. I'll return to this in my closing statement.
Again, calling non-donators equivalent to manslaughter is an unfair and unjust accusation.
...and when did I do that?
See above.
How can you regret when dead?
You can't, but you can in your final moments, as can your surviving family. And that regret might just as well be that you're not a donor as it could be that you are.
Equally the reverse. But taking the wishes of a dying person to fulfill any role always carries that responsibility.
So giving the family/individual choice is a good thing?
Most certainly.
For or against Euthanasia?
As is shaping the conditions so that the result of indifference on the subject will be beneficial to others.
That smacks highly of beneficial to whatever society sees fit to implement.
Or giving the opportunity to make a decision in the first place.
Which already exists.
Not if there ain't any organs to choose from it doesn't. As is too often the case.
Sorry, Citation needed on that one.
Ok, a fourth coma patient has just died. He opted out before going into the coma. He has a heart that could save this woman, and no legal guardian.
What exactly would your legal backlash be if a Doctor took his heart and used it to save your mother's life? Would there be one?
Because if there isn't, what weight does the entire opt-out system hold?
The same as it would be now if he'd used someone who hadn't opted in. If you've opted out, then your position is the exact same as those who haven't opted in these days.[/quote]
You would be charged with medical malpractice. Which is a fine of $1,000,000 according to Wikipedia (take with a pinch of salt). This money has no-one to be paid to (we've already stated no legal guardians) and the woman saved may claim to pay it herself.
So, in summation,
You believe, under your compulsory donation system, that any(Pro/Anti Abortion)
surgery must(Hippocratic Oath)
be undertaken to save a life, regardless of the wishes of patient (Euthanasia)
or the wishes of the corpse(Opt Out)
UNLESS there is legal documentation and legal guardians that actively seek to prevent it.
You've also laid groundwork for the system to opt out to be equivalent to admitting manslaughter, not allowed for any curtailing of that system due to excess need, and required that every person has their medical history stored (to prevent cross-contamination).
You're also crushing the three rights the dead have:
1) The right to rest undisturbed and unmolested (Geneva Convention)
2) The rights of survivors: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Anatomical_Gift_Act
3) The rights of the state: Cryogenically frozen people. They are dead, but cannot be harvested.
In fact, these rights are covered quite freely here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=924499
Now, if you want to enact legislation that these laws do not protect corpses UNLESS their legal guardian wishes to call them; then you've opened a can of worms far bigger than this topic can comfortably deal with. Especially as these rights have existed since the Ancient Egyptians.
Henry Francis Bacon- The Burial of the Dead (1920) said:
"In or near the grave are placed food, clothes, and weapons; while the body is protected from molestation often most elaborately. All this provision conveys the idea that there is something more in burial than the disposal of a dead man's bones."
