adam1503
Member
+85|6359|Manchester, UK
That sounds fair to me, I would most likely opt out of that tax because its a little high, but so long as the choice is there, its fair.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

That sounds fair to me, I would most likely opt out of that tax because its a little high, but so long as the choice is there, its fair.
You don't see that practice as a bad thing?  How?

Edit:  I see the practice of opt-out 'donations' as a slippery slope.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-01-13 15:33:00)

adam1503
Member
+85|6359|Manchester, UK
Sorry? Your post needs to be fixed, it doesnt really make sense.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

Sorry? Your post needs to be fixed, it doesnt really make sense.
Whoops.  I forgot the word "see".  My mistake.
adam1503
Member
+85|6359|Manchester, UK
A slippery slope?  Not really... towards what?  I think initiatives like this are a good idea, because it solves the problem of a shortage of donors with minimal impact on the people who are donating their organs.

Ill only be worried if they start trying to harvest my organs while Im still using them...

SenorToenails wrote:

adam1503 wrote:

Sorry? Your post needs to be fixed, it doesnt really make sense.
Whoops.  I forgot the word "see".  My mistake.
Well, you could really have put any verb in there.  Just wanted you to clarify what you were saying.

Last edited by adam1503 (2008-01-13 15:36:16)

SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

A slippery slope?  Not really... towards what?  I think initiatives like this are a good idea, because it solves the problem of a shortage of donors with minimal impact on the people who are donating their organs.

Ill only be worried if they start trying to harvest my organs while Im still using them...
I think it sets a bad precedent of letting the government expect things from its citizens unless they object.  A slippery slope in that sense.

adam1503 wrote:

Well, you could really have put any verb in there.  Just wanted you to clarify what you were saying.
I miss words a lot when I'm typing and doing something else (in this case, watching TV).  I usually preview posts and fix them, but I forgot.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6592|London, England
I don't give a shit what organs they take out of me once (no, if) I die.
adam1503
Member
+85|6359|Manchester, UK
I can see how you'd be afriad of the government gradually having more and more control over our lives, but were not exactly talking about descending into some kind of all-controlling Orwellian state, are we?  Were really only talking about a different perspective on the issue of organ donation.  I dont really see what this sets a precedent for.  Maybe the government will one day try to harvest our genetic information after were dead; after all, once were dead, we dont need it.  Maybe they could use this information to continue to grow and harvest copies of our organs after we die.  I dont think Id be so happy about that though...
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

adam1503 wrote:

I can see how you'd be afriad of the government gradually having more and more control over our lives, but were not exactly talking about descending into some kind of all-controlling Orwellian state, are we?  Were really only talking about a different perspective on the issue of organ donation.  I dont really see what this sets a precedent for.  Maybe the government will one day try to harvest our genetic information after were dead; after all, once were dead, we dont need it.  Maybe they could use this information to continue to grow and harvest copies of our organs after we die.  I dont think Id be so happy about that though...
I wouldn't want my government to be able to lay claim to me once I die, even if I can "opt out".  It's just a hairy situation that I don't like.  What if next it turns into taking estates unless you opt-out?  Or then the opt-out requires a 'valid' reason?  Then what if the opt out is disallowed because its for the "betterment of society"?  Those are logical steps to gradually eliminating your rights.

I don't like the direction that leads any government.
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6386|Vienna

Why does it always comes down to "what if something next is draconian in comparison". Why dont you just say "what if the government wants to take my newborn children next". Maybe its a European thing that we kind of trust our governments not to do extremely bad and inhumane things, so we let them do good things. That system has been in place in Austria for a long time and I dont think for a second that its a precedent and it will lead to the government doing something very VERY Orwellian.

And even though I see your point of view on opt-out system SenorToenails, you have to agree that its more beneficial and something as important as saving countless lives thrumps some fear of the future.

Also I am opposed to government deciding who gets to drive a car by issuing some licenses for it. I mean what if next thing they decide is that only people with blond hair and blue eyes can drive? I dont want that kind of control. /sarcasm - I hope you get my point.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6101|North Tonawanda, NY

zeidmaan wrote:

Why does it always comes down to "what if something next is draconian in comparison". Why dont you just say "what if the government wants to take my newborn children next". Maybe its a European thing that we kind of trust our governments not to do extremely bad and inhumane things, so we let them do good things. That system has been in place in Austria for a long time and I dont think for a second that its a precedent and it will lead to the government doing something very VERY Orwellian.

And even though I see your point of view on opt-out system SenorToenails, you have to agree that its more beneficial and something as important as saving countless lives thrumps some fear of the future.

Also I am opposed to government deciding who gets to drive a car by issuing some licenses for it. I mean what if next thing they decide is that only people with blond hair and blue eyes can drive? I dont want that kind of control. /sarcasm - I hope you get my point.
When you want to drive a car, you drive it on government owned roads.  Therefore, they are free to impose the need for a license to gain that privilege.  Operating a motor vehicle requires a basic set of skills, and that is represented by having a license.  The government has no right to lay claim to your organs (unless you object, of course).  These are two very different things, and I hope that you see that.  My examples may have seemed draconian, but why start down that road to begin with?  If organ donation is such an obvious gain, then why don't people volunteer for it.  Hell, you could run a few advertisements to remind people to check the box on the back of their driver's licenses or whatever.  How do they notify people that they can opt-out in Austria?

And yes, I do see the obvious benefit of that organ 'donation' system, and I have said that previously in the thread.  It's just that it really isn't a donation, but more of a harvest.
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6386|Vienna

Yeah I used that driving license example to make a point that you can always make an assumption that your government will do something bad. But the thing is that it should not be a deterent to improving something.

As I said before, in my opinion (no stats), most people wont think twice about the whole matter of donating organs. It might cross their minds once in a while but they wont be bothered to take it seriously. They just pretty much dont care about it. Why not use a system that puts that whole bunch automatically on the donor list? Even than upon their deaths family members can still intervene. Its not as poetic as someone proudly volunteering but who cares. 
Basically who really wants to donate his organs he will do it either way. Who really wants to keep his organs (personal choice or religious belief) he will keep them either way. So its all about that bunch of people who dont care either way.

I just dont see an argument against it except the "precedent for government to do this or that" and I dont buy that argument.
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6646|Belgium

SenorToenails wrote:

zeidmaan wrote:

Why does it always comes down to "what if something next is draconian in comparison". Why dont you just say "what if the government wants to take my newborn children next". Maybe its a European thing that we kind of trust our governments not to do extremely bad and inhumane things, so we let them do good things. That system has been in place in Austria for a long time and I dont think for a second that its a precedent and it will lead to the government doing something very VERY Orwellian.

And even though I see your point of view on opt-out system SenorToenails, you have to agree that its more beneficial and something as important as saving countless lives thrumps some fear of the future.

Also I am opposed to government deciding who gets to drive a car by issuing some licenses for it. I mean what if next thing they decide is that only people with blond hair and blue eyes can drive? I dont want that kind of control. /sarcasm - I hope you get my point.
When you want to drive a car, you drive it on government owned roads.  Therefore, they are free to impose the need for a license to gain that privilege.  Operating a motor vehicle requires a basic set of skills, and that is represented by having a license.  The government has no right to lay claim to your organs (unless you object, of course).  These are two very different things, and I hope that you see that.  My examples may have seemed draconian, but why start down that road to begin with?  If organ donation is such an obvious gain, then why don't people volunteer for it.  Hell, you could run a few advertisements to remind people to check the box on the back of their driver's licenses or whatever.  How do they notify people that they can opt-out in Austria?

And yes, I do see the obvious benefit of that organ 'donation' system, and I have said that previously in the thread.  It's just that it really isn't a donation, but more of a harvest.
Both arguments are correct, but are proof of the different mentality of the countries you both live in.

In Europe, governments are more likely to draft rules in favour of the people, and to their benefit, in case the private initiative doesn't do its job. In this case, donation of organs on voluntary basis is not enough so the government of most European states enters with the proposal that a person automatically agrees to donate his organs after his death, unless he does not agree and opts out. The result is that more organs are available and more people stay alive since the waiting list is shorter (e.g. Holland does not have this system and the waiting list is twice as long compared to Belgium). It's not a question of harvesting organs, it's a question of doing the right thing for the people.

In the US, people are way more independent and do not tolerate interference of a government in their lives ("privacy"). Instead they rely on God and private charity. Good or bad? You'll be the judge when you have to wait for a kidney or liver for 2 or for 5 years.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
Ill only be worried if they start trying to harvest my organs while Im still using them...
You don't know how organ harvesting works, they MUST be taken while the body is still working, blood is flowing, the heart is beating etc.

Only brain dead subjects are any use, and the definition of brain death is pretty tricky.
People have come round while being 'harvested' sweet....
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6521|CH/BR - in UK

I see no problem with the opt out system, none at all. The other one - the one on microchips - perplexes me: unless of course, the microchips are implanted somewhere where it's impossible to remove.

-konfusion
XanKrieger
iLurk
+60|6629|South West England

konfusion wrote:

I see no problem with the opt out system, none at all. The other one - the one on microchips - perplexes me: unless of course, the microchips are implanted somewhere where it's impossible to remove.

-konfusion
Testicle or Ovary

I'd like to see some convict go BME on that shit

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard