Pages: 1 2

 

2008-01-12 22:03:40
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6527|Global Command
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh … ans113.xml

That link is regarding organ seizure.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi … 333852.ece

And that link is regarding implanting microchips under the skin of inmates instead of incarceration.



My question: Have you lost your fucking mind?
My concern: many ominous social control policies seem to be being tested in Britain. An all powerful state is being created with m3thods which, once perfected may be adopted by power mad politicians here in my country.

Rise up, you limey bastards and do something!
2008-01-12 23:34:21
CommieChipmunk
Member
+488|6568|Portland, OR, USA

First Link wrote:

The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.
Fine by me I'm not going to use my organs when I'm dead... however the second link makes no sense.  Couldn't the just cut the chip out of there arm?  But it'd be interesting to hear how much it costs (satellites and all) compared to incarceration...

Last edited by CommieChipmunk (2008-01-12 23:36:12)

2008-01-13 00:23:34
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6385

CommieChipmunk wrote:

First Link wrote:

The proposals would mean consent for organ donation after death would be automatically presumed, unless individuals had opted out of the national register or family members objected.
Fine by me I'm not going to use my organs when I'm dead... however the second link makes no sense.  Couldn't the just cut the chip out of there arm?  But it'd be interesting to hear how much it costs (satellites and all) compared to incarceration...
Hell I think they got them small enough to flow through blood vessels by now.
2008-01-13 00:55:17
PureFodder
Member
+225|6284
The first link's a fantastic idea. It's being done in many countries in Europe already. Dead people don't need their organs, let's use them to help living people. If people want their organs when they die they just have to fill out a form.

On the second point, if anyone's lost their minds with regard to criminals it's the US and it's crazily high prison population.
2008-01-13 01:52:03
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY
Uh-oh, they got it by dropping the "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" bomb.

Second Article wrote:

The possible value of the technology to the UK's justice system was first highlighted 18 months ago, when Acpo's Mr Jones suggested the chips could be implanted into sex offenders. The implants would be tracked by satellite, enabling authorities to set up "zones", including schools, playgrounds and former victims' homes, from which individuals would be barred.

"If we are prepared to track cars, why don't we track people?" Mr Jones said. "You could put surgical chips into those of the most dangerous sex offenders who are willing to be controlled."
So they will be letting prisoners out early?  Or not sending certain ones to jail?  How will this reduce the population of the prisons?
2008-01-13 01:54:15
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

PureFodder wrote:

The first link's a fantastic idea. It's being done in many countries in Europe already. Dead people don't need their organs, let's use them to help living people. If people want their organs when they die they just have to fill out a form.

On the second point, if anyone's lost their minds with regard to criminals it's the US and it's crazily high prison population.
As much as I think people should donate organs, I just don't see why it should be an opt-out instead of an opt-in.

It's your body, you should decide what is done with it after death, not the government.
2008-01-13 02:26:18
PureFodder
Member
+225|6284

SenorToenails wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

The first link's a fantastic idea. It's being done in many countries in Europe already. Dead people don't need their organs, let's use them to help living people. If people want their organs when they die they just have to fill out a form.

On the second point, if anyone's lost their minds with regard to criminals it's the US and it's crazily high prison population.
As much as I think people should donate organs, I just don't see why it should be an opt-out instead of an opt-in.

It's your body, you should decide what is done with it after death, not the government.
You can decide, you simply fill out a form and all your organs stay put.

This only really affects those who don't really care, the apathetic who wouldn't care if their organs are removed, but can't be arsed to register now get their organs donated rather than wasted. If you have a strong objection you'll be motivated enough to fill out a form at some point during your life then the problem goes away.
2008-01-13 03:13:57
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6413|Vienna

To best of my knowlege, Austria has a organ donor system like this. And its much better tbh. You cant complain (SenorToneails and rest) how you should decide what to do with your organs and not the government, when all you need to do is fill out a form. If filling out a form is too much of a hassle for you, than you organs are NOT worth that much to you. Its a system made of pure win.

There were suggestions also of making someone ineligible for RECEIVING an organ transplant if they opted not to GIVE organs when they die.
2008-01-13 03:27:49
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6221|Brisneyland
1. If you have a problem donating organs just say so and you get to keep them when you die.

2.  I wouldnt be so quick to blame the UK though. If you check the website of Verichips and dig a bit deeper you may find that the US has been doing this for some time.
US company uses implants in its employees

CINCINNATI-- Two employees from CityWatcher.com, a security firm that provides cameras and Internet monitoring, have had silicon chips from VeriChip embedded into their arms for access to vaults where data and images are kept for clients. According to reports, this surveillance company is the first in the United States to use the technology in living humans.
They may not be forced to do this but I dont see this as being too much different, depending on the chip the employer could keep an eye on them at all times. Police/Govt/NSA may be able to access this data whenever necessary.

Last edited by Burwhale the Avenger (2008-01-13 03:28:54)

2008-01-13 03:37:47
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

PureFodder wrote:

You can decide, you simply fill out a form and all your organs stay put.

This only really affects those who don't really care, the apathetic who wouldn't care if their organs are removed, but can't be arsed to register now get their organs donated rather than wasted. If you have a strong objection you'll be motivated enough to fill out a form at some point during your life then the problem goes away.
I understand that it is Opt-Out.  But you can think of it like all those credit-card offers I get that have the Pre-Screen Opt-Out notice on the bottom.  It was probably 3 years before I finally remembered to do it.  Just because people don't opt out, doesn't mean that they opt in.  I thought "Why should I need to opt out?"

zeidmaan wrote:

To best of my knowlege, Austria has a organ donor system like this. And its much better tbh. You cant complain (SenorToneails and rest) how you should decide what to do with your organs and not the government, when all you need to do is fill out a form. If filling out a form is too much of a hassle for you, than you organs are NOT worth that much to you. Its a system made of pure win.

There were suggestions also of making someone ineligible for RECEIVING an organ transplant if they opted not to GIVE organs when they die.
Be careful with that argument.  Why can't you just fill out the form to do it, if it means that much to you.  After all, it's just a simple piece of paperwork.  That street goes both ways.
2008-01-13 03:47:07
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

Burwhale the Avenger wrote:

1. If you have a problem donating organs just say so and you get to keep them when you die.

2.  I wouldnt be so quick to blame the UK though. If you check the website of Verichips and dig a bit deeper you may find that the US has been doing this for some time.
US company uses implants in its employees

CINCINNATI-- Two employees from CityWatcher.com, a security firm that provides cameras and Internet monitoring, have had silicon chips from VeriChip embedded into their arms for access to vaults where data and images are kept for clients. According to reports, this surveillance company is the first in the United States to use the technology in living humans.
They may not be forced to do this but I dont see this as being too much different, depending on the chip the employer could keep an eye on them at all times. Police/Govt/NSA may be able to access this data whenever necessary.
When you say "The US has been doing this for some time" you might want to say "corporations in the US have been doing this for some time".

US corporations are not the same as the US government.  Two very different things. 

And, if you had read the article, they implemented an implanted ID card, which only provides credentials for secure areas.  It's not a beacon to the eye in the sky.  It replaces traditional access methods, and is an opt-in system (better than opt-out, eh?)
2008-01-13 03:55:20
oug
Calmer than you are.
+380|6518|Πάϊ
Like MasonAssassin said in another thread, this microchip shit was just a conspiracy theory for the loonies not so long ago.
ƒ³
2008-01-13 04:05:41
<BoTM>J_Aero
Qualified Expert
+62|6464|Melbourne - Home of Football

Harry Fletcher wrote:

"This is the sort of daft idea that comes up from the department every now and then, but tagging people in the same way we tag our pets cannot be the way ahead. Treating people like pieces of meat does not seem to represent an improvement in the system to me."
2008-01-13 04:16:47
Burwhale
Save the BlobFish!
+136|6221|Brisneyland

toenails wrote:

When you say "The US has been doing this for some time" you might want to say "corporations in the US have been doing this for some time".

US corporations are not the same as the US government.  Two very different things.  ".
Funny, I dont think I mentioned US govt there. If anything I should have said " this has been happening in the US for some time", slightly different but pretty much means the same.


toenails wrote:

And, if you had read the article, they implemented an implanted ID card, which only provides credentials for secure areas.  It's not a beacon to the eye in the sky.  It replaces traditional access methods, and is an opt-in system (better than opt-out, eh?)
Yes I read the article , thats why I said "depending on the chip" in my reply. Although I do see your point, I dont see it as being much different to government overlooking it, especially since the government could probably access the info whenever required.

Lets face it, its a security company that wants these in their employees. Why not include the functionality that allows satelite tracking? Handy for some security staff right. Would this get turned off when the go home ( probably not). OK  these are hypothetical scenarios, isnt it also a hypothetical scenario that the general public in the UK will get chipped as well?
2008-01-13 04:47:35
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6413|Vienna

SenorToenails wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

To best of my knowlege, Austria has a organ donor system like this. And its much better tbh. You cant complain (SenorToneails and rest) how you should decide what to do with your organs and not the government, when all you need to do is fill out a form. If filling out a form is too much of a hassle for you, than you organs are NOT worth that much to you. Its a system made of pure win.

There were suggestions also of making someone ineligible for RECEIVING an organ transplant if they opted not to GIVE organs when they die.
Be careful with that argument.  Why can't you just fill out the form to do it, if it means that much to you.  After all, it's just a simple piece of paperwork.  That street goes both ways.
Yeah its a 2 way street, and either way you get to keep you organs if you want to. But the problem with the opt-in system is an obvious lack of organ donors. Why not switch to opt-out system that still protects the rights of people but increases the number of organ donors? It includes the lazy ones that keep putting it off and more importantly that ones that dont care either way but due to the system they are automatically opted out.
2008-01-13 05:19:49
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

zeidmaan wrote:

Yeah its a 2 way street, and either way you get to keep you organs if you want to. But the problem with the opt-in system is an obvious lack of organ donors. Why not switch to opt-out system that still protects the rights of people but increases the number of organ donors? It includes the lazy ones that keep putting it off and more importantly that ones that dont care either way but due to the system they are automatically opted out.
Volunteering and donations ought to be voluntary.  The fact that special action is required to not donate shows that it is not really a volunteered donation.

I guess it doesn't matter to some people.  I do recognize the obvious benefit that society gets from it; I just don't like it.
2008-01-13 05:27:41
jord
Member
+2,382|6676|The North, beyond the wall.
I'm not rising up against anything. The minute you rape an 8 year old girl you lose your right to privacy...

Last edited by jord (2008-01-13 05:27:55)

2008-01-13 09:51:18
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6403|North Carolina
If you think organ harvesting is sketchy in England, you should see what they do in China.
2008-01-13 13:17:22
adam1503
Member
+85|6387|Manchester, UK
Just found this article from the BBC, the whole argument about organ donation could be redundant in a decade or so...

Experts believe that failing organs in humans could in theory be replaced by new versions grown using stem cells.

These are the body's master cells, which have the potential to be transformed into any cell type in the body.

Any organ constructed in this way would have a significant advantage over donor organs for transplantation because they could be made to match the patient, and face a much smaller risk of rejection by the immune system.
pretty fascinating stuff...

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-13 13:17:56)

2008-01-13 13:22:04
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6670|UK
I have no problems with my organs being used to save someone elses life.  I've snuffed it they are of no use to me.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2008-01-13 13:47:21
Noobeater
Northern numpty
+194|6445|Boulder, CO

m3thod wrote:

I have no problems with my organs being used to save someone elses life.  I've snuffed it they are of no use to me.
Same here, many people just can't be bothered or don't care what happens to them once their dead, I want someone else to live if i die. If it is opt out then all they need to do is put out a couple of adverts on tv telling people that if they wish to opt out of the organ donor list then they must have sent  off the forms by a specific date like they do with the taxes, that way people will be fully warned.
2008-01-13 14:52:49
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

Noobeater wrote:

Same here, many people just can't be bothered or don't care what happens to them once their dead, I want someone else to live if i die. If it is opt out then all they need to do is put out a couple of adverts on tv telling people that if they wish to opt out of the organ donor list then they must have sent  off the forms by a specific date like they do with the taxes, that way people will be fully warned.
What if it were this scenario:

A 14% tax will be applied to your annual income unless you opt out.

Is that fair, even if you can opt out?
2008-01-13 15:14:13
adam1503
Member
+85|6387|Manchester, UK

SenorToenails wrote:

Noobeater wrote:

Same here, many people just can't be bothered or don't care what happens to them once their dead, I want someone else to live if i die. If it is opt out then all they need to do is put out a couple of adverts on tv telling people that if they wish to opt out of the organ donor list then they must have sent  off the forms by a specific date like they do with the taxes, that way people will be fully warned.
What if it were this scenario:

A 14% tax will be applied to your annual income unless you opt out.

Is that fair, even if you can opt out?
Thats a stupid comparison to make.  What is the point of the tax?  You cant compare an added income tax to the policy of an opt-out donation system.  He is simply saying that if you advertise it well enough, an opt-out system wil satisfy those who are opposed enough to opt out as well as helping the shortage of organ donors we see in the UK.  However, I dont think there should be a deadline after which you cant opt out.  Death is the deadline: if you havent opted out by then, your organs are up for grabs.
2008-01-13 15:15:34
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6129|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

What if it were this scenario:

A 14% tax will be applied to your annual income unless you opt out.

Is that fair, even if you can opt out?
Thats a stupid comparison to make.  What is the point of the tax?  You cant compare an added income tax to the policy of an opt-out donation system.  He is simply saying that if you advertise it well enough, an opt-out system wil satisfy those who are opposed enough to opt out as well as helping the shortage of organ donors we see in the UK.  However, I dont think there should be a deadline after which you cant opt out.  Death is the deadline: if you havent opted out by then, your organs are up for grabs.
It is not a stupid comparison.  But I will refine the example further.

OK, its a 14% tax to be donated to the Red Cross or UNICEF or something.  Unless you opt-out.

Is that fair?  I mean, it's for a good cause.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-13 15:17:36)

2008-01-13 15:19:09
ThaReaper
Banned
+410|6638
The prisoners could just cut them out of their skin...

 

Pages: 1 2

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard