DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Religion, Politics and World Events (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events-47/)
-   -   Does The Government Own Your Body? (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/religion-politics-world-events/573042-does-government-own-your-body.html)

TheBigDave 04-29-10 01:54 AM

Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
I'm an organ donor. Always have been. And I wish more people would sign-up. But this seems pretty creepy.


Proposal: All New Yorkers Become Organ Donors
Assemblyman Brodsky Introduces Bill That Would Give State The Right To Decide If You Are To Give The Gift Of Life
If Passed In Albany, Law Would Be First Of Its Kind In The United States

NEW YORK (CBS) - Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.

But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.

"We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system," Brodsky said.

To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.

"Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy," Brodsky said.

Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.

http://wcbstv.com/health/ny.organ.donor.2.1662437.html

Supermallet 04-29-10 02:04 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
Israel has it? That's a bit shocking, considering that Judaism doesn't support organ donation.

kvrdave 04-29-10 02:10 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
At least they allow you to opt out, unlike the health care scheme. I think that shows better that they do own your body. Hopefully the courts disagree.

kvrdave 04-29-10 02:17 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by Suprmallet (Post 10130554)
Israel has it? That's a bit shocking, considering that Judaism doesn't support organ donation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation_in_Israel

And living donors get $5,000

JasonF 04-29-10 02:45 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
That headline is all kinds of fail. It's a default rule. That's all it is. The government doesn't decide anything. It assumes something unless you specify otherwise. All this bill is doing is changing what the government assumes. You still have the same right you always had -- if you make your wishes affirmatively known, the government must honor them.

I think this bill is a good idea.

TheBigDave 04-29-10 05:43 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aclS1pGHp8o&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aclS1pGHp8o&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

RoyalTea 04-29-10 07:07 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
I like how you can get free movie tickets (among other goodies) if you donate blood. But if you get a single penny after donating an organ, you're a criminal.

starman9000 04-29-10 07:46 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
:lol:

I used to sell plasma and loved how they always called it donating.

orangecrush 04-29-10 08:49 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 10130567)
That headline is all kinds of fail. It's a default rule. That's all it is. The government doesn't decide anything. It assumes something unless you specify otherwise. All this bill is doing is changing what the government assumes. You still have the same right you always had -- if you make your wishes affirmatively known, the government must honor them.

I think this bill is a good idea.

Agree on all counts. I would like to see them go farther and allow people to sell organs too.

RoyalTea 04-29-10 08:54 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
I don't like that people are automatically opted into organ donation, but I'd like to see something set up where if you're not a donor, you can't be a recipient.

it's a give and take. if you're not willing to give, you don't get to take.

Groucho 04-29-10 09:16 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by RoyalTea (Post 10130746)
I don't like that people are automatically opted into organ donation, but I'd like to see something set up where if you're not a donor, you can't be a recipient.

That makes sense on paper, but what's to stop somebody from taking their name off the donation list after they receive an organ?

Birrman54 04-29-10 09:30 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
Am I missing something, or does the wiki link not say anything about Israel having an opt-out policy for donation? My understanding is that they just give priority for transplant treatments to people (and their families) who had signed up as donors.

Sean O'Hara 04-29-10 09:55 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 10130567)
That headline is all kinds of fail. It's a default rule. That's all it is. The government doesn't decide anything. It assumes something unless you specify otherwise. All this bill is doing is changing what the government assumes. You still have the same right you always had -- if you make your wishes affirmatively known, the government must honor them.

So suppose there's an Amish or old school Mennonite community in New York. Do the members have to go down to the DMV and get an ID just so they can opt out? Or what happens if a Christian Scientist gets hit by a car and doesn't have his ID on him -- the doctor assumes he's a donor and starts the organ removal process?

This is an issue of personal autonomy -- the government should default to the least intrusive stance.

DVD Josh 04-29-10 10:11 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by Lemmy (Post 10130704)
And if Jewish folks don't support organ donation? Wow, that's some bizarre and useless "rite", or rule or whatever, in their dogma. Just another reason to continue to keep myself distanced from OR (organized religion). If your religion doesn't allow you to choose a proven scientific cure for many ills...I mean, WTF?!!? Why would ANYONE want to live that way? That's just plain stupid (at worst) and misguided (at best).*

*no offense to anyone intended, regardless of your religious persuasion

Yeah you do, or else you wouldn't have written it the way you did. At least be truthful if you are going to slag a whole group of people.

sracer 04-29-10 10:15 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by Lemmy (Post 10130704)
I do, too. It's a decision for the "greater good", and it's easy enough to be "off that list" if you so choose. Organ donation should be a priority for everyone; there should be no "waiting lists" of folks who, in many (if not most) cases, die before their organ can be harvested.

Organ donation should be a priority but one rooted in personal conviction not government edict.



Originally Posted by Lemmy (Post 10130704)
And if Jewish folks don't support organ donation? Wow, that's some bizarre and useless "rite", or rule or whatever, in their dogma. Just another reason to continue to keep myself distanced from OR (organized religion).

You have an organized religion... it is called "government rule". You reject the rules of organized religion (as if all religion is the same) but embrace the rules of government. You see the value of the "greater good" being forced by government but reject the value of the "greater good" being exhorted by religion (organized or otherwise).

(I don't know if this applies to you, but it is a general observation) I find it ironic that those who claim that Christians are "robots" have no problem with constructing a government that requires all citizens to act the same. (healthy food laws, mandatory organ donation, etc.)

wendersfan 04-29-10 07:08 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
If you're a pregnant woman in Oklahoma then it seems that yes, the government does own your body.

JasonF 04-29-10 07:15 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 10131942)
If you're a pregnant woman in Oklahoma then it seems that yes, the government does own your body.

I heard about that law. The part that really bothers me isn't the mandatory ultrasounds -- it's the fact that the law effectively provides legal immunity to doctors who lie to their patients in order to get their patients to decide against abortion. That, to me, is abominable.

Edit: To steal a slogan from the 60s, they said if I supported Obamacare, the government would come between me and my doctor. I supported Obamacare and sure enough, the government is comign between me and my doctor. Or would, if I were a pregnant Oklahoman. ;)

wendersfan 04-29-10 07:19 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by JasonF (Post 10131949)
I heard about that law. The part that really bothers me isn't the mandatory ultrasounds -- it's the fact that the law effectively provides legal immunity to doctors who lie to their patients in order to get their patients to decide against abortion. That, to me, is abominable.

Abominable doesn't begin to describe it. It's repulsive. Your baby can have a birth defect show up on an ultrasound and the doctor can legally lie to you about it and say everything's OK. Seriously, WTF is wrong with Oklahoma?

Sean O'Hara 04-29-10 10:25 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 10131955)
Abominable doesn't begin to describe it. It's repulsive. Your baby can have a birth defect show up on an ultrasound and the doctor can legally lie to you about it and say everything's OK. Seriously, WTF is wrong with Oklahoma?

It's Oklahoma. Florida may get the press, but in terms of shit-heels per capita, Okies can't be beat.

Josh-da-man 04-29-10 11:21 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by Groucho (Post 10130769)
That makes sense on paper, but what's to stop somebody from taking their name off the donation list after they receive an organ?

I want my fucking kidney back now!

Josh-da-man 04-29-10 11:25 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by wendersfan (Post 10131942)
If you're a pregnant woman in Oklahoma then it seems that yes, the government does own your body.

Big picture...

We'll be needing a lot of poor and minority people to go overseas and fight the Islamic hordes in the next few decades. Keep shittin' those kids out, ladies!

TheBigDave 04-29-10 11:33 PM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by kvrdave (Post 10130556)
At least they allow you to opt out, unlike the health care scheme. I think that shows better that they do own your body. Hopefully the courts disagree.

How long before they add a tax penalty to people that opt-out of organ donation?

brayzie 04-30-10 12:03 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by TheBigDave (Post 10132330)
How long before they add a tax penalty to people that opt-out of organ donation?

I'd be worried about something like that as well. But I'd be willing to cross that bridge when I come to it.

I think the state automatically assuming everyone is an organ donor, and allowing people to opt out is pretty reasonable especially considering how much it's needed.

How does one go about becoming an organ donor?

orangecrush 04-30-10 09:33 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 
For those like me who didn't know about the Oklahoma law:
http://newsok.com/new-abortion-law-f...ad_story_title

New Oklahoma abortion law faces battle
Reproductive Rights group files lawsuit after Oklahoma Senate overrides governor’s veto
BY JULIE BISBEE 232 Comments
Published: April 28, 2010

Oklahoma enacted one of the strictest anti-abortion measures in the country Tuesday when the Senate voted to override the governor’s veto of a bill that requires a woman seeking an abortion to undergo an ultrasound.

More InfoHouse Bill 2780

• Requires women seeking an abortion to be shown an ultrasound at least an hour before undergoing the procedure.

• The health care provider must describe fetal development, including the heart beat and development of organs or limbs. The woman can avert her eyes, but health care providers are required to give an explanation.

• Women seeking an abortion because of a medical emergency are not required to view an ultrasound image. A written certificate detailing the medical emergency will stay in a patient’s file for up to seven years.

• A doctor who does not comply with the ultrasound requirement can be sued by the woman seeking an abortion; the patient’s spouse, parent, sibling or guardian; or another health care provider.

• The district attorney or attorney general also can bring legal action to stop the provider from doing abortions.

• A physician who violates the injunction could be fined up to $100,000.

House Bill 2656

• Protects a health care provider from a lawsuit if their omission of information about the health or condition of an unborn child "contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion.”

A New York-based reproductive rights group quickly filed a lawsuit in Oklahoma County District Court challenging the law on the grounds that it violates a woman’s right to terminate a pregnancy and constitutional rights to equal protection.

Gov. Brad Henry said the law likely would be overturned in costly litigation. He also criticized it for lacking stipulations for rape or incest victims.

In a vote of 36-12, the Senate overrode his veto and made House Bill 2780 law. The measure requires a doctor to show a pregnant woman a view of her fetus and describe in detail what is visible, including any limbs or organs.

Doctors who fail to comply with the provisions of the law would face fines and could be sued by the woman’s spouse or family members. Clinics that repeatedly are cited for failure to comply with the new law could be banned from performing abortions.

"This ultrasound law is the most restrictive one in the country,” said Stephanie Toti, attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights. "All providers will be forced to use the ultrasounds. A woman won’t be able to seek a provider that doesn’t use an ultrasound as standard practice.”


Another override
In another vote of 36-12, the Senate also did away with Henry’s veto of HB 2656, which makes it illegal to sue a health care provider because an "omission contributed to the mother not having obtained an abortion.” The House voted Monday to override the Democrat governor’s veto on the bills.
Opponents of the bills argued the measures are another way to make it more difficult for women to seek an abortion. Proponents said a woman seeking an abortion should have accurate information about the development of her unborn child.

Tony Lauinger, chairman of Oklahomans for Life, said the ultrasound measure is meant to protect the unborn and the mother’s mental health.

"Many women suffer severe emotional trauma as a result of having had an abortion,” Lauinger said. "With this, women will have the full benefit of having all the information. We believe the effort not only saves the lives of unborn children, but it spares women from emotional or psychological distress that follows an abortion.”

Henry said he was disappointed by the Legislature’s veto override.

"It signals the beginning of another costly and possibly futile legal battle for the state of Oklahoma,” Henry said. "Both laws will be challenged and, in all likelihood, overturned by the courts as unconstitutional. I fear this entire exercise will ultimately be a waste of taxpayers’ time and money.”

Senators debated the measure for nearly an hour before the vote.

Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre, D-Tulsa, urged lawmakers to consider the rights of women.

"We know this is wrong. Think about what we’re doing if we do not sustain this veto. Remember it’s our body, not theirs,” Eason McIntyre said. "It’s nobody else’s decision. If it’s the wrong decision, you live with it.”

Sen. Andrew Rice, D-Oklahoma City, pointed out that agencies and programs meant to help young mothers and families are taking budget cuts. Rice reminded lawmakers of cuts in this year’s budget that did away with prenatal care at an Oklahoma City school for teen mothers.

"When the budget comes down the road, let’s ask ourselves if we’re being pro-life with the budget,” said Rice. "These girls did what we wanted them to do. They had their babies. Are we going to find the money to enable them to take care of unborn babies and babies when they’re born?”

Sen. Steve Russell, R-Oklahoma City, said policymakers needed to be a voice for the unborn.

"No one is more vulnerable than the child in the womb,” Russell said. "They have no voice, except ours.”

Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore, who made the motion in the Senate to override Henry’s veto, closed debate, pointing out that the House author of the bill is a woman, Rep. Lisa Billy, R-Lindsay. Sykes said ultrasounds, like most medical procedures, are invasive, and the ultrasound requirement is not onerous.

"This (ultrasound) is done a high percentage of the time prior, to determine the size and weight,” Sykes said. "And it’s done again after the murder of that child to make sure they didn’t leave any of it in the womb.”

Funkpie 04-30-10 09:43 AM

Re: Does The Government Own Your Body?
 

Originally Posted by sracer (Post 10130875)
You have an organized religion... it is called "government rule". You reject the rules of organized religion (as if all religion is the same) but embrace the rules of government. You see the value of the "greater good" being forced by government but reject the value of the "greater good" being exhorted by religion (organized or otherwise).

(I don't know if this applies to you, but it is a general observation) I find it ironic that those who claim that Christians are "robots" have no problem with constructing a government that requires all citizens to act the same. (healthy food laws, mandatory organ donation, etc.)

:up:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:47 PM.


Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.