[Ratmagiclady]

I would also like to know how you are supposed to show, in case of unexpected death, that you are not a donor. I can envision all sorts of scenarios wherein you make it to the hospital, either alive or dead, but your "Not a Donor" card (for lack of a better term) doesn't. What's next? Everybody is DNR unless they have specifically declared their desire to live?

Err, that's pretty paranoid, Parallax.

This wording isn't very good, I'll admit, (nowhere is party mentioned, by the way, of this assemblyman, except here

Twenty-four European countries already have such laws in place, he said.

If he succeeds, distraught families would no longer be able to override their loved ones' decisions to donate upon their death. And eventually, hospitals would be able to assume the deceased consented to have his or her organs harvested, unless the person refused in writing.

I'm not sure about the 'eventually' 'able' and 'assumed,' but going to an 'opt-out system' would presumably mean you would have to know who might or might not have opted out.

I suppose it'd be pretty important to be sure that was there. On a more positive end of things, I am not signed on as an organ donor because I don't think any of these parts are worth the risk of someone trying to implant them, due to my health history and chronic autoimmune issues. Pretty sure my left cornea might be OK, though. When this mortal coil returns to sender, I'm probably just gonna have a quick look back and salute it like the second Bluesmobile.

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yil9wlfa0yo&NR=1[/yt]

Ah, here ya go:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Phurqwcgw4&feature=related[/yt]

---

Last edited by Ratmagiclady; 04-30-2010 at 11:34 AM.

[Parallax]

Err, that's pretty paranoid, Parallax.

par·a·noi·a
   /ˌpærəˈnɔɪə/ Show Spelled[par-uh-noi-uh] Show IPA
–noun
Baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others.

We're talking about the government here, so no, it isn't paranoid.
Considering the events of the last 10-20 years it fails as paranoia under
both the "baseless" and the "excessive" parts of that definition.

Twenty years ago I would never have thought there would be a law, upheld by SCOTUS ruling, curtailing my right to free speech. (If I want to buy advertising time to say publicly what I like or don't like about a candidate, I cant do it within 90 days of an election.)

Twenty years ago I would never have thought there would be a law requiring me to purchase a service whether I want it or not.

Twenty years ago I would never have thought there would be a law that says gvt agencies can ignore a large chunk of the Constitution as long as they have a good reason.

Twenty years ago I would never have thought that a private corporation could steal my money, loose it, cry to the gvt and have the gvt take more of my money to replace for those companies the stolen money that they lost.

Baseless or excessive suspicion? I don't think so!

[Ratmagiclady]

Interesting standards, Parallax, after things you've said to me.

Whereas, this is a possible implication of a certain reading of something someone said about what a New york Assemblyman proposed looking at.

Lots of things I wouldn't have expected to come to pass in the past ten to twenty years have in fact done so as well. For *this* *I'm* called 'paranoid* despite personal experience.

*This,* however, is just a proposition we could start talking about.

I don't like a lot of the implications, either, mind you. Even just on religious grounds, ...I mean, did you know how many social rules Galen the Physician was breaking when he dissected corpses to learn anatomy? When Christianity came, they dared not do it themselves, either, relying on old translations. Until some others over a thousand years later crossed those tabooes. (right down to grave-robbing) to learn better, too.

Touchy thing. Touchier for some than others, admittedly. Jokes aside, it's probably very important for explicit consent to be given, by my sense of ethics, but I also know that a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't care don't like to be confronted with the possibility of their own demise in terms of their presently-being-used body being cut up and handed to doctors.

Like I said, and I'm the last one who'd trust a big-dollar medical operation, anyway, if a donor card said, 'Corneas only, mind you the right one has an astigmatism,' well, that'd be something I could probably fill in when not dealing with the DMV.

(Hey, me waste a decent lens? Never. But I'd be worried about anything else: my own difficulties are hard enough to map when I'm *alive,* never mind in the rush of trying to save someone's life with major surgery. Bad idea. I gave up on even trying to donate blood a long time ago.)

Assumed consent has an advantage, if we ever get our medical bookkeeping right. It's easy enough for anyone to say, "Hel, No!" about this. (And it should be made easy. Like, any and every time you send off your insurance premiums) 'Well, OK,' is something people tend to look away from. Feel guilty about, just cause it's a damn uncomfortable topic introduced when people are already overwhelmed by forms and legalese and all.

[cardinal43]

RML: about 1/3 of the way through the article it says he is a Democrat. Might want to clean those glasses.

[Ratmagiclady]

RML: about 1/3 of the way through the article it says he is a Democrat. Might want to clean those glasses.

Hee. I'll admit that these glasses need replacing. Coating's been slowly crackling since I first got my Mamiya and put some scuffs on em.