Racist Body Parts?
billy
"Sheffield's Northern General Hospital received donated organs with the
provisor they were used for whites only. Mr. Dobson - Health Secretary -
said he was appalled to hear of the condition and has ordered an enquiry."
What the hell is going on! Cannot a person in this land of the free donate
their last parts to whomsoever they wish? Why an enquiry? Why has it become
a "you cannot do that Government issue"? No doubt the Race Relations Board
will crawl out of their hole and throw in their lot as a pernicious and
mischief making make-weight. Even when a person dies, their last bits must
follow politically correct channels. What if that person wished their bits
to go only to children; or left-handed dwarfs? Or fed to the dogs? Whose
bits were they - anyway? Certainly not the Governments or the Race Relations
Board!
--
regards, billy
Remember, that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
is to be none the less free then you were before.
(Antonius Marcus Aurelius)
Chris Rogers
the wishes of the donor were not followed
Chris
billy wrote in message <7lts3d$3qg$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Richard Caley
b> Cannot a person in this land of the free donate their last parts to
b> whomsoever they wish?
Yes they can. And no one has said they can't. You are setting up the
flimsiest of straw men.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Sunil
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, billy wrote:
> Today -July 6 - a TV Teletext item stated:
> "Sheffield's Northern General Hospital received donated organs with the
> provisor they were used for whites only. Mr. Dobson - Health Secretary -
> said he was appalled to hear of the condition and has ordered an enquiry."
>
> What the hell is going on! Cannot a person in this land of the free donate
> their last parts to whomsoever they wish? Why an enquiry? Why has it become
> a "you cannot do that Government issue"? No doubt the Race Relations Board
> will crawl out of their hole and throw in their lot as a pernicious and
> mischief making make-weight. Even when a person dies, their last bits must
> follow politically correct channels. What if that person wished their bits
> to go only to children; or left-handed dwarfs? Or fed to the dogs? Whose
> bits were they - anyway? Certainly not the Governments or the Race Relations
> Board!
> --
> regards, billy
> Remember, that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
> is to be none the less free then you were before.
> (Antonius Marcus Aurelius)
Who gives a fuck what happens to your organs when you're dead? They'll
simply be of no use to you at all, would they now? I mean it won't
make any difference to *you* personally if your kidney goes to Joe
Bloggs or your liver to Mohammed al-Huq or whoever, will it?
I personally favour presumed consent for organ donation for everybody,
that way waiting lists for transplants will be massively reduced
(barring tissue typing issues).
Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
but true!
Sunil
JNugent
>In article <7lts3d$3qg$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy (b) writes:
>b> Cannot a person in this land of the free donate their last parts to
>b> whomsoever they wish?
>Yes they can. And no one has said they can't. You are setting up the
>flimsiest of straw men.
But Frank Dobson (that paragon of intelligence, that Einstein of the
cabinet) has just announced that he will legislate to ban it.....
John
Sunil wrote in message ...
>Who gives a fuck what happens to your organs when you're dead? They'll
>simply be of no use to you at all, would they now? I mean it won't
>make any difference to *you* personally if your kidney goes to Joe
>Bloggs or your liver to Mohammed al-Huq or whoever, will it?
>
>I personally favour presumed consent for organ donation for everybody,
>that way waiting lists for transplants will be massively reduced
>(barring tissue typing issues).
>
>Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
>but true!
Its a matter of possession, your situation suggests that the state assumes a
right to your bits after you die, and make no mistake, after a short while
the consensual aspect of that system would disappear whether we like it or
not.
Most right thinking people, whether they express a wish to donate or not
would be horrified by the supreme arrogance of that assumption.
Granted your organs as far as you and I are concerned are of no use to us
after we die, but a lot of people do have beliefs that are contrary to that,
and it is arrogance again to suggest that you are right and they are wrong.
For myself whilst I believe my mortal remains will be of no use to me after
death, I have no wish for them to be useful to ANYONE else either and is
that not a wish to be respected also and assumed without question unless
stated otherwise?
Remember, forced charity is no charity at all - it's taxation.
John
hector
how about if I have eaten the flesh of the pig, an unclean animal?
what then for the poor Moslem who needs my body parts to survive but may
suffer eternal damnation for accepting body parts from an infidel who is
also a pig eater?
what of the Hindu who has bits of my dead organs transferred to him or her
knowing I have eaten the sacred cow?
what of the Negro who has my penis , as we all know the white mans penis is
incredibly small when compared to the massive steel shaft with which your
average sex machine Negro is equipped.
What I say is if the aforementioned are prepared to sign and carry donor
cards for the benefit of all mankind then they can have my body parts with
pleasure, if not then I don't see how they can expect others to provide them
with organs to replace their diseased organs
Sunil wrote in message ...
>
>
>
>> Today -July 6 - a TV Teletext item stated:
>> "Sheffield's Northern General Hospital received donated organs with the
>> provisor they were used for whites only. Mr. Dobson - Health Secretary -
>> said he was appalled to hear of the condition and has ordered an
enquiry."
>>
donate
>> their last parts to whomsoever they wish? Why an enquiry? Why has it
become
>> a "you cannot do that Government issue"? No doubt the Race Relations
Board
>> will crawl out of their hole and throw in their lot as a pernicious and
>> mischief making make-weight. Even when a person dies, their last bits
must
>> follow politically correct channels. What if that person wished their
bits
>> to go only to children; or left-handed dwarfs? Or fed to the dogs? Whose
>> bits were they - anyway? Certainly not the Governments or the Race
Relations
>> Board!
>> --
>> regards, billy
>> Remember, that to change your mind and follow him who sets you right
>> is to be none the less free then you were before.
>> (Antonius Marcus Aurelius)
>
>
>simply be of no use to you at all, would they now? I mean it won't
>make any difference to *you* personally if your kidney goes to Joe
>Bloggs or your liver to Mohammed al-Huq or whoever, will it?
>
>I personally favour presumed consent for organ donation for everybody,
>that way waiting lists for transplants will be massively reduced
>(barring tissue typing issues).
>
>Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
>but true!
>
>
>
MTB
suitable for transplant then they should be used. If a person has any
objection then a NON doner card should be available for you to carry to
ensure that your organs will remain with you for all time.
John <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7m08lu$qgj$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net...
>
> Sunil wrote in message ...
>
> >Who gives a fuck what happens to your organs when you're dead? They'll
> >simply be of no use to you at all, would they now? I mean it won't
> >make any difference to *you* personally if your kidney goes to Joe
> >Bloggs or your liver to Mohammed al-Huq or whoever, will it?
> >
> >I personally favour presumed consent for organ donation for everybody,
> >that way waiting lists for transplants will be massively reduced
> >(barring tissue typing issues).
> >
> >Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
> >but true!
>
>
billy
Chris Rogers <chris....@lbl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:931335276.588.0....@news.demon.co.uk...
> You've got this totally the wrong way round. The enquiry is to find out
why
> the wishes of the donor were not followed
>
> Chris
> billy wrote in message <7lts3d$3qg$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>...
John
MTB wrote in message <7m0d58$bfv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>John, I would have to agree with Sunil, that if a person dies the organs
are
>suitable for transplant then they should be used. If a person has any
>objection then a NON doner card should be available for you to carry to
>ensure that your organs will remain with you for all time.
Yes, I understand the principle of non donor cards, I disagree with that
principle. My innards are my innards and I should not have to fend off the
vultures who are after them with such a device.
It is upto the individual to say 'yes you can use my body' rather than
have outside agencies say you have are compelled to donate. Therein lies the
roots of the virtue of charity.
People should not assume rights and privileges where non exist nor
impose duties where non are warranted. We have a set duty to society and our
peers during our lifetime which basically entails allowing others to get on
with their own lives and hopefully expecting the same from others. No-one
has duties beyond death.
That aside, yes it would reduce organ waiting lists and dig the
increasingly poor NHS out of another problem, but it is a rejection of the
most fundamental of human rights the right to possess your own body.
Otherwise we have descended a step into a form of social slavery which says
that you as an individual have rights in as much as you exist to service the
community.
You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
John
'Droid
> You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
> non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
> do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
> before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed, not compulsory,
norm. No rights are being infringed. Your relatives don't lose anything, you
don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
some, life itself.
'Droid
John
'Droid wrote in message >I don't see a problem with this donation being the
assumed, not compulsory,
>norm. No rights are being infringed.
We will have to agree to disagree on that then. You would be assuming that
you knew in all certainty the enforced volunteer had no misgivings about
donating or if they did then given time you could have impressed the
inherent goodness of such an act onto them, them of course being morally
good people underneath hmm?
>Your relatives don't lose anything,
Or may become emotionally distraught if they were opposed, knew the
'volunteer' was also opposed, but for some reason neglected to register that
opposition?
> you
>don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including
for
>some, life itself.
And assuming that the volunteer cared two hoots about what happened to
anyone else, you don't have to care for others you know, its just the nice
thing to do.
John
Robin
<s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk> writes
>In article <7lts3d$3qg$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy (b) writes:
>
>b> Cannot a person in this land of the free donate their last parts to
>b> whomsoever they wish?
>
>Yes they can. And no one has said they can't. You are setting up the
>flimsiest of straw men.
>
accepted that restrictions were placed on the recipients by race.
However, the donors parents could not have said give that kidney to X
and that lung to Y.
You cannot buy a transplant and, apart from living donations, transplant
lists are maintained on a strict 'greatest need' basis. Factors like
tissue type, CMV status, organ size and deteriorating condition means
that transplant lists are not FIFO queues.
The situation of the racist donation should not be allowed to happen
again. Yes three people received transplants but it is absolutely the
thin end of a very thick wedge indeed.
Much more importantly is that everyone who is not against organ donation
should make it known that they do not object, and should register with
the organ donation registration scheme. Carrying a card is fine but
cards get lost and mislaid. Make sure your family and friends know your
wishes.
We are desperately short of organs in the UK. I have lost friends this
year both pre and post Tx and I know three people now who desperately
need a lung.
Please recycle yourself :)
Regards
--
Robin Muskett
'God is a concept by which we measure ourselves' (Lennon?)
Richard Caley
>> Yes they can. And no one has said they can't. You are setting up the
>> flimsiest of straw men.
j> But Frank Dobson (that paragon of intelligence, that Einstein of the
j> cabinet) has just announced that he will legislate to ban it.....
Frank Dobson is a politician. As such he is ocntractually obliged to
act almost as stupid as billy acts voluntarilly.
Can't help thinking Frank has an easier time fulfilling this
requirement than most though.
Besides, Frank has not proposed to do anything about what conditions
people can choose to impose, but rather what conditions the HNS is
allowed to accept.
Sangraal
Rogers <chris....@lbl.co.uk> writes
>You've got this totally the wrong way round. The enquiry is to find out why
>the wishes of the donor were not followed
No. The enquiry is to find out why the NHS accepted a donated organ
with conditions attached.
And let the record show, the conditions were not imposed by the donor,
but by the donor's family.
--
Sangraal
Sangraal
eserve.co.uk> writes
>What the hell is going on! Cannot a person in this land of the free donate
>their last parts to whomsoever they wish? Why an enquiry? Why has it become
>a "you cannot do that Government issue"?
<Sigh>
You can donate your organs to anything at all. But if you choose to
donate them to the NHS, then they become a national resource and you
can't lay conditions on whom they will be used to benefit.
The NHS has an ideological commitment to use their resources to benefit
the health of everyone, regardless of ethnicity, religion, sex, etc.
That's why there has to be a government enquiry: because the NHS, by
accepting organs with these conditions, has violated its principles.
And, in case you didn't realise, the enquiry is looking into the NHS to
determine if anyone is culpable there. No one has launched an enquiry
to identify the donor's family and criticise their motives (hateful
bigots though they doubtless are). This is not a "you cannot do that
Government issue". It's a Government criticising its own practices
issue.
> No doubt the Race Relations Board
>will crawl out of their hole and throw in their lot as a pernicious and
>mischief making make-weight. Even when a person dies, their last bits must
>follow politically correct channels.
National resources must be used equitably. The importance of this is
obvious to anyone in a minority. You really want a society where, as a
matter of deliberate policy, national resources are distributed
unequally: a Health Service that won't treat Jews? a benefit system
that excludes Asians? prescriptions subsidised for everyone except
women?
> What if that person wished their bits
>to go only to children; or left-handed dwarfs? Or fed to the dogs? Whose
>bits were they - anyway? Certainly not the Governments or the Race Relations
>Board!
They became the NHS' property as soon as the donor, having donated them,
died. The family had no right, after the donor had made his wishes
clear, to impose conditions on the donation.
Clear now?
--
Sangraal
Sangraal
eserve.co.uk> writes
>Chris: I hope you're right. regards, billy
No, he's completely wrong.
--
Sangraal
Sangraal
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>> You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
>> non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
>> do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
>> before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
>
>don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
>some, life itself.
I'm more comfortable living in a society where the determination of how
my body is disposed of defaults to me, not to the state. 'Default'
donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
positive step for a free society to take.
--
Sangraal
Bob
> John wrote:
>
> > You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
> > non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
> > do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
> > before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
>
> I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed, not compulsory,
> norm. No rights are being infringed. Your relatives don't lose anything, you
> don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
> some, life itself.
I can only speak from experience. When my brother was 18 he had a motor
bike crash that left him in a coma and the doctors were seriously keen to
switch off the machines and whip out his organs. Fortunately my parents
wouldn't let them and today, 25 years later, virtually back to normal.
Bob - a no donor card zone
Joseph Otten
I wonder if this issue is worth a little more ethical debate than it
seems to be getting.
If organs-with-strings are accepted, this can potentially benefit all
patients. For instance, a number of black patients might move up the
queue one place thanks to a white patient getting a conditional
kidney.
However, if policy was to accept such conditions, it would presumably
encourage some donors to impose them.
The correct policy would seem to depend on the proportions of each of
the following categories in the donor population:
1. Those who never donate
2. Those who would only donate if they can impose conditions
3. Those who would donate anyway, and impose conditions if they can.
4. Those who would donate without imposing conditions.
Unless groups 2&3 combined are many times* larger than group 4, then I
submit that more kidneys would be available to all ethnic groups by
allowing conditions.
*By many times, I mean approximately proportional to the ratio of
white to black patients.
It is difficult to appear to condone something morally objectionable,
but if lives are saved, this is surely more important.
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Joseph Otten
+0000, 6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>In article <378437c6...@news.virgin.net>,
>joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
>
>> It is difficult to appear to condone something morally objectionable,
>> but if lives are saved, this is surely more important.
>
>The other little scientific point which has been overlooked in all this -
>is that of compatibility and tissue typing.
Is tissue type strongly correlated with race? It may be for all I
know, but I wouldn't assume it because so many genetic things are
weakly correlated with race if at all.
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Kira L. Brown
6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
> In article <37848b14...@news.virgin.net>,
> joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
> > Is tissue type strongly correlated with race?
>
> Yes. I believe it is.
You believe wrongly. It isn't.
Dr. Landsteiner would no doubt agree with me on this one.
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
Gary Dale
The BMA and keep using that chilling phrase 'presumed consent'.
See:
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/Times/frontpage.html?1596190
'Droid
>
> 'Droid wrote in message >I don't see a problem with this donation being the
> assumed, not compulsory,
> >norm. No rights are being infringed.
>
> you knew in all certainty the enforced volunteer had no misgivings about
> donating or if they did then given time you could have impressed the
> inherent goodness of such an act onto them, them of course being morally
> good people underneath hmm?
And you are assuming that the deceased had no intention of donating their
organs.
> >Your relatives don't lose anything,
>
> Or may become emotionally distraught if they were opposed, knew the
> 'volunteer' was also opposed, but for some reason neglected to register that
> opposition?
The problem at this time is the relatives are emotionally distraught anyway. It
is this emotional reaction that allows them to overrule the wishes of the
deceased now, often regretted by them later.
> > you
> >don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including
> for
> >some, life itself.
>
> And assuming that the volunteer cared two hoots about what happened to
> anyone else, you don't have to care for others you know, its just the nice
> thing to do.
I'd rather assume the good about someone, rather than the selfish.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> In article <3783CD20...@netcomuk.co.uk>, nm...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>
> > John wrote:
> >
> > > You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
> > > non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
> > > do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
> > > before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
> >
> > don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
> > some, life itself.
>
> bike crash that left him in a coma and the doctors were seriously keen to
> switch off the machines and whip out his organs. Fortunately my parents
> wouldn't let them and today, 25 years later, virtually back to normal.
That's a different situation. The decision is not between taking organs or not,
but between allowing someone to live or die. The transplant option comes into
play once the latter decision is made. To allow someone in that situation to die
just to get at their organs is wrong. However, once the decision is made to turn
the machines off (and transplant shoudl have no place in this) then the option
for transplants comes into play.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> In article <3783CD20...@netcomuk.co.uk>, 'Droid
> <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
> >> You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
> >> non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
> >> do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
> >> before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
> >
> >I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed, not compulsory,
> >norm. No rights are being infringed. Your relatives don't lose anything, you
> >don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
> >some, life itself.
>
> my body is disposed of defaults to me, not to the state. 'Default'
> donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
> positive step for a free society to take.
But the choice is still yours.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> >In article <378437c6...@news.virgin.net>,
> >joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
> >
> >> It is difficult to appear to condone something morally objectionable,
> >> but if lives are saved, this is surely more important.
> >
> >The other little scientific point which has been overlooked in all this -
> >is that of compatibility and tissue typing.
>
Yes.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> I wonder if this issue is worth a little more ethical debate than it
> seems to be getting.
>
> If organs-with-strings are accepted, this can potentially benefit all
> patients. For instance, a number of black patients might move up the
> queue one place thanks to a white patient getting a conditional
> kidney.
>
> However, if policy was to accept such conditions, it would presumably
> encourage some donors to impose them.
>
> The correct policy would seem to depend on the proportions of each of
> the following categories in the donor population:
> 1. Those who never donate
> 2. Those who would only donate if they can impose conditions
> 3. Those who would donate anyway, and impose conditions if they can.
> 4. Those who would donate without imposing conditions.
>
> Unless groups 2&3 combined are many times* larger than group 4, then I
> submit that more kidneys would be available to all ethnic groups by
> allowing conditions.
>
> *By many times, I mean approximately proportional to the ratio of
> white to black patients.
IIRC, most organs do go to recipients of the same race in any case, in attempt
to minimise immune responses caused by the proteins in the organs. I recall
reading that a big problem for ethnic minorities is that their are even fewer
donors proportional to the population than in whites.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> >I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed,
>
And this is more chilling than presumed non-consent?
'Droid
'Droid
>
> In message <B3AA55889...@0.0.0.0>
> 6...@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:
>
> > joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
>
> > > Is tissue type strongly correlated with race?
> >
>
> You believe wrongly. It isn't.
I'm fairly certain that there is a strong correlation between race and tissue
typing. One problem currently is the lack of donors from the ethnic minorities
because of this: it would not be a specific problem if there was no correlation.
This is also dependent on what is being donated. The cornea can be donated, for
example, almost without consideration to tissue type.
'Droid
Robin
writes
>>I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed,
>
>The BMA and keep using that chilling phrase 'presumed consent'.
And what's wrong with recycling used body parts? I thought you were all
for progressive science. Now you turn out to be a luddite after all.
Do you approve of children and adults dying while we burn and bury
serviceable organs?
Robin
>In article <378437c6...@news.virgin.net>,
>joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
>
>> It is difficult to appear to condone something morally objectionable,
>> but if lives are saved, this is surely more important.
>
>The other little scientific point which has been overlooked in all this -
>is that of compatibility and tissue typing.
>
>
match.
As I explained earlier Tx lists are NOT FIFO queues. If one person has a
Tx the others don't necessarily move up a place.
Robin
<jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>MTB wrote in message <7m0d58$bfv$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>>John, I would have to agree with Sunil, that if a person dies the organs
>are
>>suitable for transplant then they should be used. If a person has any
>>objection then a NON doner card should be available for you to carry to
>>ensure that your organs will remain with you for all time.
>
>
>Yes, I understand the principle of non donor cards, I disagree with that
>principle. My innards are my innards and I should not have to fend off the
>vultures who are after them with such a device.
Then you'll be able to register your objection and any useful parts of
your body will be burned or rot away, a complete selfish waste.
> It is upto the individual to say 'yes you can use my body' rather than
>have outside agencies say you have are compelled to donate. Therein lies the
>roots of the virtue of charity.
> People should not assume rights and privileges where non exist nor
>impose duties where non are warranted. We have a set duty to society and our
>peers during our lifetime which basically entails allowing others to get on
>with their own lives and hopefully expecting the same from others. No-one
>has duties beyond death.
>
> That aside, yes it would reduce organ waiting lists and dig the
>increasingly poor NHS out of another problem, but it is a rejection of the
>most fundamental of human rights the right to possess your own body.
>Otherwise we have descended a step into a form of social slavery which says
>that you as an individual have rights in as much as you exist to service the
>community.
Presumably you are unaware that the state has a right to perform post
mortem surgery. Your face gets pulled off and you will be opened up from
neck to pubis.
>
> You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
>non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we all
>do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
>before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
>
>John
Rubbish. Many other countries now use presumed consent. What would you
want with your body once your brain is non-functioning.
billy
billy <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ltud3$5rl$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Today -July 6 - a TV Teletext item stated:
> "Sheffield's Northern General Hospital received donated organs with the
> provisor they were used for whites only. Mr. Dobson - Health Secretary -
> said he was appalled to hear of the condition and has ordered an enquiry."
>
It's reported today (8 July) in a prominent popular newspaper that a doctor
at the Manchester Royal Infirmary refused organs from an Asian family who
insisted that they should only be used for people of the same race.
In doing this he denied (according to the newspaper) up to six people a
possible life-saving operation.
Here we go again: People jumping on their politically correct and so called
ethical high horse. And in doing so, condemn six people to possible death.
As soon as we get rid of this politically correct sickness and those who
perpetuate its evil the "healthier" we'll be.
John
'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3784E86D...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> Sangraal wrote:
> > I'm more comfortable living in a society where the determination of how
> > my body is disposed of defaults to me, not to the state. 'Default'
> > donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
> > positive step for a free society to take.
>
> But the choice is still yours.
But you are then forced to make that choice, again asserting a right to a
thing which is already yours. Why should you have to? Why can I not go into
your home and take your possessions on the basis that you haven't said I
can't? Because they are your possessions, yours to keep or dispose of as YOU
see fit before and after death (finance non-withstanding).
John
John
'Droid wrote in message <3784E719...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>> We will have to agree to disagree on that then. You would be assuming
that
>> you knew in all certainty the enforced volunteer had no misgivings about
>> donating or if they did then given time you could have impressed the
>> inherent goodness of such an act onto them, them of course being morally
>> good people underneath hmm?
>
>And you are assuming that the deceased had no intention of donating their
>organs.
And THAT is the safer assumption.
>The problem at this time is the relatives are emotionally distraught
anyway. It
>is this emotional reaction that allows them to overrule the wishes of the
>deceased now, often regretted by them later.
Probably so I concede. Each case must be taken on its merits of course and I
would suggest that if a veto is made there may be a good enough reason to
have reservations about carving.
>> And assuming that the volunteer cared two hoots about what happened to
>> anyone else, you don't have to care for others you know, its just the
nice
>> thing to do.
>
>I'd rather assume the good about someone, rather than the selfish.
Your perogative of course. I would suggest that there are more selfish
people, people with reservations however large or slight and apathetic
people who would refuse to donate if pressed to the question than you seem
to believe.
John
Doug Weller
+0100, jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk said...
{SNIP]
>
> What the hell is going on!
Perhaps some doctors felt that they shouldn't let a black person die to meet
someone's wishes?
In any case, please keep this off alt.history.british.
Doug
--
Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
John
'Droid wrote in message <3784E86D...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>Sangraal wrote:
>> my body is disposed of defaults to me, not to the state. 'Default'
>> donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
>> positive step for a free society to take.
>
>But the choice is still yours.
But you are then FORCED to make that choice. Again why should you have to
assert ownership of that which is already yours?
Why can I not enter your home and take your possessions on the basis that
since you have not said I cannot have them, then I have a right to them?
Because they are YOUR possessions to use or dispose of as YOU see fit both
during life and (finance not-withstanding) after death. The same principle
is at stake in both circumstances.
John
John
Robin wrote in message ...
>In article <7m0fm5$so6$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>, John
><jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>Then you'll be able to register your objection and any useful parts of
>your body will be burned or rot away, a complete selfish waste.
Being selfish is a right, no-one is morally obliged to be charitable to
society in general and that obligation would be legislated for under a
non-donor system. Moral outrage will not impress in this case as donation is
a charitable act ONLY if you force charity it ceases to be charity and I
reserve the right to choose where and when I am charitable.My body and my
person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
>
>Presumably you are unaware that the state has a right to perform post
>mortem surgery. Your face gets pulled off and you will be opened up from
>neck to pubis.
>
But they usually have a reason, and if they take that liberty otherwise then
they certainly are not deserving of anything else.
>Rubbish. Many other countries now use presumed consent.
And rubbish in return as just because others do something is not a good
reason to do so yourself.
>What would you
>want with your body once your brain is non-functioning.
How can you say in all certainty that you or I won't want it forsomething
hmm? As it happens I fall into the camp that thinks my body will be just
meat after death, but I still have the ownership rights on that meat whether
YOU think i'm being reasonable or not.
John
John
'Droid wrote in message <3784ED29...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>Gary Dale wrote:
>>
>> >I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed,
>>
>> The BMA and keep using that chilling phrase 'presumed consent'.
>
Infinitely so, like it or not presumed consent is saying that your guts are
a national resource unless you say otherwise. Presumed non-consent says that
your guts become a national resource if you wish them to be. One is an act
of charity about which we can all feel good, the other is arrogation about
which there would be much shame to be had, more so even than the
consequences non donation.
John
John
Kira L. Brown wrote in message
<491E6CDD45%kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk>...>> In article <37848b14...@news.virgin.net>,
>> joe....@virgin.net (Joseph Otten) wrote:
>
>> > Is tissue type strongly correlated with race?
>>
>> Yes. I believe it is.
>
>You believe wrongly. It isn't.
>
I wouldn't disagree with you not having much information on the specifics,
but why if that is the case are there posters over areas of the country
(Bradford that I have seen) in Urdu begging for and trying to explain the
need for Asian organ donors?
John
'Droid
>
> 'Droid wrote in message <3784E719...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
> >> We will have to agree to disagree on that then. You would be assuming
> that
> >> you knew in all certainty the enforced volunteer had no misgivings about
> >> donating or if they did then given time you could have impressed the
> >> inherent goodness of such an act onto them, them of course being morally
> >> good people underneath hmm?
> >
> >And you are assuming that the deceased had no intention of donating their
> >organs.
>
> And THAT is the safer assumption.
How? It certainly isn't safer for those who need the organs. The donor is dead
in any case.
> >> And assuming that the volunteer cared two hoots about what happened to
> >> anyone else, you don't have to care for others you know, its just the
> nice
> >> thing to do.
> >
> >I'd rather assume the good about someone, rather than the selfish.
>
> Your perogative of course. I would suggest that there are more selfish
> people, people with reservations however large or slight and apathetic
> people who would refuse to donate if pressed to the question than you seem
> to believe.
The problem is that a reservatioon about donating is not a refusal. Most
reservations are are probably based on ignorance about the procedure and that
person waiting until they find out the details. The problem is that most people
never find the time to get the information to decide, and then it's too late.
'Droid
'Droid
>
> 'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3784E86D...@netcomuk.co.uk...
> > Sangraal wrote:
> > > I'm more comfortable living in a society where the determination of how
> > > donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
> > > positive step for a free society to take.
> >
> > But the choice is still yours.
>
> thing which is already yours. Why should you have to? Why can I not go into
> your home and take your possessions on the basis that you haven't said I
> can't? Because they are your possessions, yours to keep or dispose of as YOU
> see fit before and after death (finance non-withstanding).
The reason that is unacceptable, is because the legal assumption in the burglary
case is that permission is denied, and this is the case in 100% of cases. This
is a safe assumption. In the case of transplants, the legal assumption is that
permission is refused.
'Droid
John
'Droid wrote in message <37850DCB...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>The reason that is unacceptable, is because the legal assumption in the
burglary
>case is that permission is denied, and this is the case in 100% of cases.
This
>is a safe assumption. In the case of transplants, the legal assumption is
that
>permission is refused.
That is an argument based on semantics alone. The same legal assumption
exists in both cases, but you have your assumptions confused, so let me
explain:
You could under current systems (act extremely strangely and) daub a
sign on your house saying that you wanted your possessions to be taken and
inform the police of such a wish and leave your door open, therefore no
crime could possibly be committed if your effects went missing during the
night; the parallel in that behaviour being the carrying of a donor card or
'expressing consent'.
If consent was assumed, no crime is committed if your home is ransacked
UNLESS you daubed a sign on your house and register with the authorities
that you would rather not be burgled tonight thank you very much. The point
that I have been trying to make of course being that it would be an
incredible situation if you were forced to do such a thing.
John
billy
Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sdxcWJA5...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk...
> In article <7m0f2a$q1d$1...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, billy <jo...@billy100.fre
> eserve.co.uk> writes
> >Chris: I hope you're right. regards, billy
>
> No, he's completely wrong.
>
> --
> Sangraal
How do you know he's wrong?
regards, billy
hector
wrong to deny another human being from using my defunct organs.
in the usa recently two young men decided that they were going to die
violent dearhs by guns.
they decided to take others with them and we as a society decided that was
wrong
Robin wrote in message ...
>>
>>The BMA and keep using that chilling phrase 'presumed consent'.
>
>for progressive science. Now you turn out to be a luddite after all.
>
>Do you approve of children and adults dying while we burn and bury
>serviceable organs?
>
John
'Droid wrote in message <37850C31...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>> >And you are assuming that the deceased had no intention of donating
their
>> >organs.
>>
>> And THAT is the safer assumption.
>
>How? It certainly isn't safer for those who need the organs. The donor is
dead
>in any case.
It shouldn't need re-explaining, but I will anyway. The recipients are
people who need a transplant, that transplant is dependant on the charity of
others. They have no right to that transplant and if the potential donor was
uncharitable enough not to want to donate no-one has a right to force that
donation.
>The problem is that a reservatioon about donating is not a refusal. Most
>reservations are are probably based on ignorance about the procedure and
that
>person waiting until they find out the details. The problem is that most
people
>never find the time to get the information to decide, and then it's too
late.
Reservations breed refusals.Reservations can be large or small. Reservations
are also not necessarily based on ignorance, again you are judging people
too harshly in your assumptions. If someone refuses, then they refuse. If
they do not seek information on these procedures can you not admit that this
may be because they do not want to know, or because whilst they view
donation as a laudable passtime, they view it as something that other people
do and is 'not for them'? That alone is a valid enough reason to leave
people to their own convictions however weak, and consider that as most
people are happy enough to continue through life with their heads happily in
the sand perhaps it is YOU who is wrong and they right?
John
hector
Doug Weller wrote in message ...
billy
Doug Weller <dwe...@ramtops.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.11ef11f6e...@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article <7lts3d$3qg$2...@news4.svr.pol.co.uk>, on Tue, 6 Jul 1999 22:14:01
> +0100, jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk said...
>
> {SNIP]
> >
> > What the hell is going on!
>
> Perhaps some doctors felt that they shouldn't let a black person die to
meet
> someone's wishes?
>
> In any case, please keep this off alt.history.british.
>
> Doug
> --
> Doug Weller Moderator, sci.archaeology.moderated
> Submissions to: sci-archaeol...@medieval.org
> Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.demon.co.uk
> Co-owner UK-Schools mailing list: email me for details
Is alt.history.british a no free speech zone? Learn what the other history
makers are thinking - it's all part of history in the making! (and you
haven't read the issue properly - judging from your remark)
regards, billy
MTB
surely you would want the organs to be available asap. Its a fact that
there are more people requiring donations than there are donations
available, therefore we must try and reduce this.
In belguim where such a scheme exists it has doubled the number of organs
available for transplant. Surely it is worth it.
Whilst I would always respect the choice of an individual to carry a non
doner card - for whatever reason i feel that we must use whatever organs are
available to use for transplant for the sake of the people who require them.
MTB
John <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7m0fm5$so6$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net...
>
> Yes, I understand the principle of non donor cards, I disagree with that
> principle. My innards are my innards and I should not have to fend off the
> vultures who are after them with such a device.
> It is upto the individual to say 'yes you can use my body' rather than
> have outside agencies say you have are compelled to donate. Therein lies
the
> roots of the virtue of charity.
> People should not assume rights and privileges where non exist nor
> impose duties where non are warranted. We have a set duty to society and
our
> peers during our lifetime which basically entails allowing others to get
on
> with their own lives and hopefully expecting the same from others. No-one
> has duties beyond death.
>
> That aside, yes it would reduce organ waiting lists and dig the
> increasingly poor NHS out of another problem, but it is a rejection of the
> most fundamental of human rights the right to possess your own body.
> Otherwise we have descended a step into a form of social slavery which
says
> that you as an individual have rights in as much as you exist to service
the
> community.
>
John
MTB wrote in message <7m37b0$dlf$2...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>John If you were in the unfourtunate position of requiring a transplant
>surely you would want the organs to be available asap. Its a fact that
>there are more people requiring donations than there are donations
>available, therefore we must try and reduce this.
>
>In belguim where such a scheme exists it has doubled the number of organs
>available for transplant. Surely it is worth it.
>
>Whilst I would always respect the choice of an individual to carry a non
>doner card - for whatever reason i feel that we must use whatever organs
are
>available to use for transplant for the sake of the people who require
them.
You mistake my motives in this argument I fear. I am not advocating mass
refusal to donate organs and I do lament the dearth of available material.
I merely believe that assumed assent is wrong in principle. Why as I keep
repeating should anyone have to assert their right to something that already
belongs to them? Their organs are theirs to give not yours to take,
therefore the choice to give should be theirs to make and not an arrogation
for them to defend against. Yes, presuming consent would increase organs
available and save lives, but the fact of saving lives does not wash clean
the sordid reversal required to obtain the organs.
Posters have been stating or implying with apparent authority that the vast
majority of people who do not carry donor cards are merely too lazy to
register their wishes or are apathetic and would really like to donate if
they had an opportunity. The fact remains they have not registered thier
wishes and therefore to all official intents and purposes do NOT want to
donate and that is the only valid statistic and you can try to prove me
wrong on that. How therefore can you then reverse this truth and say because
the outcome is beneficial the OFFICIAL wishes of the masses can be ignored
as they are presumed to be incorrect for whatever morally acceptable reason.
How further can you then suggest that the majority of people should then be
forced to go out of their way to register their wishes with the authorities.
How finally could justify yourself knowing that someone may eventually
become a presumed donor when he wished not to be, but was for some reason
too 'lazy' or 'apathetic' to register their 'unwishes'.
The only just and fair solution is to ask these potential donors
individually whether they wish to be registered or not, this determines for
certain who wishes to donate and who does not. This maintains donation as a
charitable act and not a moral obligation and prevents refusal becoming a
stigma.
John
Joseph Otten
Jul 1999 21:17:46 +0100, "John" <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Being selfish is a right, no-one is morally obliged to be charitable to
>society in general and that obligation would be legislated for under a
>non-donor system. Moral outrage will not impress in this case as donation is
>a charitable act ONLY if you force charity it ceases to be charity and I
>reserve the right to choose where and when I am charitable.My body and my
>person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
And as soon as you cease to exist, they are certainly no longer your
resources. I might care now what happens after I die, but when the
time comes I will no longer have any cares, and therefore no reason
for imposing demands on the living.
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Joseph Otten
14:34:22 +0100, p...@karsh.demon.co.uk (Peadar O`Maoldoraidh) wrote:
>Surely, it's the size of group 3 that really matters? If group 3 was
>significant in comparison to group 4 (not necessarily larger let alone
>"many times larger") and group 2 negligible, then accepting organs with
>imposed conditions would have no significant effect on the total number
>of organs available but would significantly reduce the number free of
>conditions. This would reduce the number of successful transplants that
>could be achieved.
Quite possibly. I wasn't taking into account the quality of a match.
If group 2 is indeed negligible, then refusing conditions does seem
sensible, but it doesn't seem right treating even a single life-saving
organ as negligible.
>Also, you're assuming that imposing conditions will nearly always mean
>'white recipient only'. That may not be the case. Donors could impose
>any kind of bizarre conditions they liked. To make an informed
>assessment of the effects of accepting conditional organ donations,
>you'd have to know what sort of conditions might actually be imposed by
>most donors.
A diversity of conditions could well mean a lot of them cancelling
each other out and reducing the overall impact. Again, I guess I'm
neglecting quality-of-match criteria. How significant are they? Does a
single individual generally stand out, or is it more common that a
large handful are virtually identical?
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Robin
<nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Bob wrote:
>>
>> In article <3783CD20...@netcomuk.co.uk>, nm...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> > John wrote:
>> >
>> > > You may argue that you still have the freedom of choice to get a
>> > > non-donor card and avoid all of this, but knowing modern politics as we
>all
>> > > do, once the first step has been taken it would be only a matter of time
>> > > before it became the compulsary 'norm' to donate after death.
>> >
>> > norm. No rights are being infringed. Your relatives don't lose anything, you
>> > don't lose anything and someone, or several people gain a lot, including for
>> > some, life itself.
>>
>> I can only speak from experience. When my brother was 18 he had a motor
>> bike crash that left him in a coma and the doctors were seriously keen to
>> switch off the machines and whip out his organs. Fortunately my parents
>> wouldn't let them and today, 25 years later, virtually back to normal.
>
>That's a different situation. The decision is not between taking organs or not,
>but between allowing someone to live or die. The transplant option comes into
>play once the latter decision is made. To allow someone in that situation to die
>just to get at their organs is wrong. However, once the decision is made to turn
>the machines off (and transplant shoudl have no place in this) then the option
>for transplants comes into play.
>
>'Droid
AFAIK the criteria for brain stem death has been modified and refined
over the years. It would be very unlikely that organs would be taken
from someone with any chance of recovery.
'Droid
>
> 'Droid wrote in message <37850C31...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
> >> >And you are assuming that the deceased had no intention of donating
> their
> >> >organs.
> >>
> >> And THAT is the safer assumption.
> >
> >How? It certainly isn't safer for those who need the organs. The donor is
> dead
> >in any case.
>
> It shouldn't need re-explaining, but I will anyway. The recipients are
> people who need a transplant, that transplant is dependant on the charity of
> others. They have no right to that transplant and if the potential donor was
> uncharitable enough not to want to donate no-one has a right to force that
> donation.
If you insist on that position, I think there is a definite argument for saying
that those who have agreed to donate organs should have priority to receive them
when needed. It would surely be hypocritical for an expressed non-donor to
accept an organ from a process that they have a principled objection to.
'Droid
John
'Droid wrote in message <37853889...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>> >How? It certainly isn't safer for those who need the organs. The
>>>donor is dead in any case.
>>
>> It shouldn't need re-explaining, but I will anyway. The recipients are
>> people who need a transplant, that transplant is dependant on the charity
of
>> others. They have no right to that transplant and if the potential donor
was
>> uncharitable enough not to want to donate no-one has a right to force
that
>> donation.
>
>If you insist on that position, I think there is a definite argument for
saying
>that those who have agreed to donate organs should have priority to receive
them
>when needed. It would surely be hypocritical for an expressed non-donor to
>accept an organ from a process that they have a principled objection to.
There is no objection to the process, I am saying that it is upto the state
to be certain that their 'donor' really wanted to donate rather than upto
the 'non-donor' to tell them otherwise, irrespective of the urgency of any
connected cases.
Incidentally I think you will find that most groups which have objections to
the procedure even go as far as refusing blood transfusions that may
otherwise save their lives (Jehovah's Witnesses?). So that argument is a
self-policing one as people who feel that strongly against transplantation
wouldn't have anything to do with transplants anyway.
John
John
Joseph Otten wrote in message <
>>My body and my
>>person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
>
>And as soon as you cease to exist, they are certainly no longer your
>resources. I might care now what happens after I die, but when the
>time comes I will no longer have any cares, and therefore no reason
>for imposing demands on the living.
Just because I have no use for those resources doesn't mean they are no
longer mine, and even if they are not mine, they are certainly not yours.
That is unless you have asked me for them before hand, and oh look, I have
no donor card so I guess you have asked and been refused.
Prove your second point categorically in as many words as like and I may
agree with you.
As far as I can see it is the living making demands on me not the other way
around.
John
Kira L. Brown
"John" <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Joseph Otten wrote in message <
>
> >>My body and my
> >>person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
> >
> >And as soon as you cease to exist, they are certainly no longer your
> >resources. I might care now what happens after I die, but when the
> >time comes I will no longer have any cares, and therefore no reason
> >for imposing demands on the living.
>
> Just because I have no use for those resources doesn't mean they are no
> longer mine, and even if they are not mine, they are certainly not yours.
When you die, you as a legal entity cease to exist. Your body, having been
an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
State.
What the State then decides to do with it is ultimately up to the Head
of State.
kira.
--
This is a tagline.
Sangraal
<jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>'Droid <nm...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3784E86D...@netcomuk.co.uk...
>> Sangraal wrote:
>> > I'm more comfortable living in a society where the determination of how
>> > my body is disposed of defaults to me, not to the state. 'Default'
>> > donation that you have to choose to opt out of isn't, I think, a
>> > positive step for a free society to take.
>>
>> But the choice is still yours.
>
>
>But you are then forced to make that choice, again asserting a right to a
>thing which is already yours. Why should you have to? Why can I not go into
>your home and take your possessions on the basis that you haven't said I
>can't? Because they are your possessions, yours to keep or dispose of as YOU
>see fit before and after death (finance non-withstanding).
What he said! :)
--
Sangraal
Sangraal
<kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> writes
>When you die, you as a legal entity cease to exist. Your body, having been
>an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
>State.
>
>What the State then decides to do with it is ultimately up to the Head
>of State.
Since when was my body the property of the state?
--
Sangraal
Richard Caley
b> Cannot a person in this land of the free donate their last parts to
b> whomsoever they wish?
>> Yes they can.
r> However, the donors parents could not have said give that kidney to X
r> and that lung to Y.
Well, there are presumably public health rules about handing out
chunks of dead people, but that's a slightly different issue.
My point to `billy' was that you can put whatever restrictions you
want to on your donation.
The issue is not that psoepl shouldn't have that right, the issue is
whether the NHS should accept the conditional offer.
r> The situation of the racist donation should not be allowed to happen
r> again.
There are prefectly good organisational reasons why accepting
conditional donation is not a good idea. The moral panic is just
politicians grasping a few headlines as usual.
--
Mail me as rjc not s...@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<
Catherine
>
>
> How can you say in all certainty that you or I won't want it forsomething
> hmm? As it happens I fall into the camp that thinks my body will be just
> meat after death, but I still have the ownership rights on that meat
whether
> YOU think i'm being reasonable or not.
There. You've said yourself - you won't even KNOW if you still have your
organs or not. So again - *what's the point in keeping them????* Why are you
so determined to keep something you won't even know you've got, which will
rot away in due course, thus denying life to others?
>
> John
>
>
>
Catherine
.
> >
> >I'd rather assume the good about someone, rather than the selfish.
>
> Your perogative of course. I would suggest that there are more selfish
> people, people with reservations however large or slight and apathetic
> people who would refuse to donate if pressed to the question than you seem
> to believe.
>
> John
Do you really think that there a sizeable number of people who would
actually refuse to donate and perhaps save several lives, preferring instead
to take the course of non-donation which is of benefit to absolutely
nobody?? What, for goodness' sake, is the POINT?? It's hardly going to make
a difference to you is it? I'd like to think that the majority of people
aren't so petty and downright illogical
>
>
Doug Weller
+0100, jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk said...
>
> Is alt.history.british a no free speech zone? Learn what the other history
> makers are thinking - it's all part of history in the making! (and you
> haven't read the issue properly - judging from your remark)
No, it's a newsgroup to discuss British history, not contemporary events, not
history in the making. There's a difference.
And the remark you refer to was not a remark but a question.
Angus McBastard
Kira L. Brown <kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> wrote in message
news:491EA97D62%kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk...
> In message <7m3gf5$6tb$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>
> "John" <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> > Joseph Otten wrote in message <
> >
> > >>My body and my
> > >>person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
> > >
> > >And as soon as you cease to exist, they are certainly no longer your
> > >resources. I might care now what happens after I die, but when the
> > >time comes I will no longer have any cares, and therefore no reason
> > >for imposing demands on the living.
> >
> > Just because I have no use for those resources doesn't mean they are no
> > longer mine, and even if they are not mine, they are certainly not
yours.
>
been
> an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
> State.
>
> What the State then decides to do with it is ultimately up to the Head
> of State.
>
Remember this: 'Soylent Green is people'
Angus
Gary Dale
>>I don't see a problem with this donation being the assumed,
>
>And what's wrong with recycling used body parts?
Voices in your head. Go back and read what was written, and the cited
article.
>I thought you were all for progressive science.
Ditto.
>Now you turn out to be a luddite after all.
And you turn out looking foolish.
Joseph Otten
1999 02:21:17 +0100, Sangraal <Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <491EA97D62%kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk>, Kira L. Brown
><kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> writes
>>When you die, you as a legal entity cease to exist. Your body, having been
>>an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
>>State.
>>
>>What the State then decides to do with it is ultimately up to the Head
>>of State.
>
>Since when was my body the property of the state?
Since when you die.
IIRC in some countries the corpse becomes part of the estate and can
be bequeathed in a will.
Personally I think this leaves too much room for mischief. I wonder if
I could leave my remains to Damien Hirst.
Joe
--
Joseph Otten
Marc Living
<kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> wrote:
>> Just because I have no use for those resources doesn't mean they are no
>> longer mine, and even if they are not mine, they are certainly not yours.
>
>When you die, you as a legal entity cease to exist.
No you don't. When you die you (legally) continue to exist until your
estate has been administered
>Your body, having been
>an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
>State.
No it doesn't. It, like all other possessions, vests in your estate -
which is why the estate has to pay for its disposal.
--
Marc Living (remove "BOUNCEBACK" to reply)
***********************************************
A freeman shall not be amerced for a small fault,
but after the manner of the fault, and for a
great fault after the greatness thereof.
************************************************
Marc Living
wrote:
>>Since when was my body the property of the state?
>Since when you die.
>IIRC in some countries the corpse becomes part of the estate and can
>be bequeathed in a will.
Including this country.
>Personally I think this leaves too much room for mischief. I wonder if
>I could leave my remains to Damien Hirst.
Why not? People are perfectly free to leave their remains for medical
research - why not "artistic" research?
Marc Living
wrote:
>There. You've said yourself - you won't even KNOW if you still have your
>organs or not. So again - *what's the point in keeping them????* Why are you
>so determined to keep something you won't even know you've got, which will
>rot away in due course, thus denying life to others?
Perhaps he doesn't want anybody to have a vested interest in his not
surviving a traffic accident.
Robin
BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:51:26 +0100, "Catherine" <cml...@easynet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>There. You've said yourself - you won't even KNOW if you still have your
>>organs or not. So again - *what's the point in keeping them????* Why are you
>>so determined to keep something you won't even know you've got, which will
>>rot away in due course, thus denying life to others?
>
>Perhaps he doesn't want anybody to have a vested interest in his not
>surviving a traffic accident.
Ah, here we go. The old 'vulture Dr' scare. This was trotted out in the
sixties and the seventies. The checks on brain-stem death are absolutely
reliable thanks to experience and MRI scans etc.
Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate one case ( in this country) where Dr's
have taken the organs from a person with a live brain.
Robin
<jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>Robin wrote in message ...
>>In article <7m0fm5$so6$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net>, John
>><jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>>Then you'll be able to register your objection and any useful parts of
>>your body will be burned or rot away, a complete selfish waste.
>
>Being selfish is a right, no-one is morally obliged to be charitable to
>society in general and that obligation would be legislated for under a
>non-donor system. Moral outrage will not impress in this case as donation is
>a charitable act ONLY if you force charity it ceases to be charity and I
>person are not national resources to be used as others see fit
>
>
>>
>>mortem surgery. Your face gets pulled off and you will be opened up from
>>neck to pubis.
>>
>
>But they usually have a reason, and if they take that liberty otherwise then
>they certainly are not deserving of anything else.
>
>>Rubbish. Many other countries now use presumed consent.
>
>And rubbish in return as just because others do something is not a good
>reason to do so yourself.
>
>>What would you
>>want with your body once your brain is non-functioning.
>
>How can you say in all certainty that you or I won't want it forsomething
>hmm? As it happens I fall into the camp that thinks my body will be just
>meat after death, but I still have the ownership rights on that meat whether
>YOU think i'm being reasonable or not.
I believe that many people would think you unreasonable. In Belgium Tx
have increased by 50% since opt-out was introduced. Only 2% of the
population take this action. In what way do you consider this is a bad
thing?
>
>John
Isn't the body 'released' for disposal after Dr's have determined
there's no foul play? This implies that the state does have control over
you remains to some extent.
Presumably you would not accept a transplant to save your life if that
was needed?
M.J.Powell
<Sang...@troll-ink.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <491EA97D62%kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk>, Kira L. Brown
><kbr...@neutralino.demon.com.uk> writes
>>an item in your possession, for hte purposes of the law, lapses to the
>>State.
>>
>>of State.
>
We're all pawns of the state.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Gary Dale
>>When you die, you as a legal entity cease to exist.
>No you don't. When you die you (legally) continue to exist until your
>estate has been administered
'Death is not the end of your financial obligations'.
As they say.
Gary Dale
Since nulabour got in? Oh no, that's your 'mind'.
One thing at a time, eh?
M.J.Powell
BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>
>
>>IIRC in some countries the corpse becomes part of the estate and can
>>be bequeathed in a will.
>
>Including this country.
I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Cliff Morrison
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
> which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
but how can that be so, if body-snatching is illegal?
'Droid
> Incidentally I think you will find that most groups which have objections to
> the procedure even go as far as refusing blood transfusions that may
> otherwise save their lives (Jehovah's Witnesses?). So that argument is a
> self-policing one as people who feel that strongly against transplantation
> wouldn't have anything to do with transplants anyway.
Jehovah's Witnesses leave organ donation to the conscience of the individual.
The religious prohibition is against blood, and as long as the transplant is
free of blood there is no objection, although some take this further and do
refuse donated organs.
'Droid
Catherine
Robin <Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote in message
news:wh7T1fAY...@droom.demon.co.uk...
fit
>
> Presumably you would not accept a transplant to save your life if that
> was needed?
Well by my reckoning that's at least 3 different people who have asked John
this question and I haven't seen an answer yet. Have I missed it or could it
be that he is evading the question?
M.J.Powell
Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
I don't know. Is 'body-snatching' illegal? Or is it desecration or
something like that?
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
'Droid
He did answer that he was willing to donate his organs.
'Droid
Doug Weller
GMT, joe....@virgin.net said...
>
> And as soon as you cease to exist, they are certainly no longer your
> resources. I might care now what happens after I die, but when the
> time comes I will no longer have any cares, and therefore no reason
> for imposing demands on the living.
>
>
die because they were the wrong race, religion, etc. is utterly abhorrent.
Cliff Morrison
<mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Don't know what it comes under.... anyone know?
Marc Living
Morrison) wrote:
>In article <lZC6nMAT...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, "M.J.Powell"
><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
>> which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
>but how can that be so, if body-snatching is illegal?
Indeed. There was a recent case about body snatching which turned on
this very point. ISTR it was about somebody who pinched body parts
from a research hospital. Wish I could remember the verdict.
Marc Living
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>In article <3797e06f...@news.clara.net>, Marc Living <marc@equity.
>BOUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 9 Jul 1999 02:51:26 +0100, "Catherine" <cml...@easynet.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>>There. You've said yourself - you won't even KNOW if you still have your
>>>organs or not. So again - *what's the point in keeping them????* Why are you
>>>so determined to keep something you won't even know you've got, which will
>>>rot away in due course, thus denying life to others?
>>Perhaps he doesn't want anybody to have a vested interest in his not
>>surviving a traffic accident.
>Ah, here we go. The old 'vulture Dr' scare. This was trotted out in the
>sixties and the seventies. The checks on brain-stem death are absolutely
>reliable thanks to experience and MRI scans etc.
And some people still refuse to be buried because they are afraid of
being buried alive - or ask to be buried with a bell. Other people
will cross the road to avoid walking under a ladder. There is no law
against people from holding irrational fears.
>Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate one case ( in this country) where Dr's
>have taken the organs from a person with a live brain.
How would anybody go about finding that out?
Neil Gardner
any other human being on this planet of any colour, gender, sexual
orientation, creed or political persuasion provided that she or he:
Has access to surgery and medical care
Can afford a transplant
Worships the wonders of PFI
Is not a Serb, Iraqi or Sudanese citizens
Is not a dangerous subversive opposed to humanitarian bombing.
Tony Blair
Cliff Morrison wrote:
> In article <pcMpGDAr...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, "M.J.Powell"
> <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > In article <cliffm-0907...@man-108.dialup.zetnet.co.uk>, Cliff
> > Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
> > >In article <lZC6nMAT...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, "M.J.Powell"
> > ><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
> > >> which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
> > >
> > >but how can that be so, if body-snatching is illegal?
> >
M.J.Powell
>In article <pcMpGDAr...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>,
>"M.J.Powell" <mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <cliffm-0907...@man-108.dialup.zetnet.co.uk>, Cliff
>> Morrison <cli...@post.almac.co.uk> writes
>> >In article <lZC6nMAT...@pickmere.demon.co.uk>, "M.J.Powell"
>> ><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
>> >> which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
>> >
>> >but how can that be so, if body-snatching is illegal?
>>
>> I don't know. Is 'body-snatching' illegal? Or is it desecration or
>> something like that?
>
>all you can do is ask them nicely (post mortem) to do what you wanted with
>it.
From that article, no one 'owns' it. It is just convenient to let the
family or executors deal with it.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Derek Bell
>What the hell is going on! Cannot a person in this land of the free donate
>their last parts to whomsoever they wish?
The controversy is over someone who donated their organs to the NHS -
attaching conditions restricts whoever gets a donation and can cost lives.
Derek
--
Derek Bell db...@maths.tcd.ie | Socrates would have loved
WWW: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/index.html| usenet.
PGP: http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dbell/key.asc | - J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
hector
you crash headlong into the car carrying our esteemed leader Tory Blair,
both of you are seriously injured.
to cut one of you out of the car alive the other must die.
will a statue be erected to your memory do you think?
you are seriously injured in a car crash
you are dying
you are in intensive care,
you can be saved but it will cost a lot of money.
Tory Blair is in the same hospital dying of liver failure
your tissue analysis is the same as dear old Tory's
what happens next?
if you carry a donor card?
if you don't carry a card because the government have passed a law saying
they can take any bit of you when you die?
Catherine wrote in message <7m3lhl$2lv1$2...@quince.news.easynet.net>...
>
>John <jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:7m2vdd$v33$1...@newsreader1.core.theplanet.net...
>>
>> 'Droid wrote in message <3784E719...@netcomuk.co.uk>...
>
>.
>> >
>> >I'd rather assume the good about someone, rather than the selfish.
>>
>> Your perogative of course. I would suggest that there are more selfish
>> people, people with reservations however large or slight and apathetic
>> people who would refuse to donate if pressed to the question than you
seem
>> to believe.
>>
>> John
>
>Do you really think that there a sizeable number of people who would
>actually refuse to donate and perhaps save several lives, preferring
instead
>to take the course of non-donation which is of benefit to absolutely
>nobody?? What, for goodness' sake, is the POINT?? It's hardly going to make
>a difference to you is it? I'd like to think that the majority of people
>aren't so petty and downright illogical
>>
>>
>
>
JNugent
>"billy" <jo...@billy100.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>>What the hell is going on! Cannot a person in this land of the free donate
>>their last parts to whomsoever they wish?
> The controversy is over someone who donated their organs to the NHS -
>attaching conditions restricts whoever gets a donation and can cost lives.
But it can't "cost lives" as effectively as not donating at all if one's
wishes will not be met.
Robin
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>><mi...@pickmere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> I've got a vague recollection of a newspaper article about funerals
>>> which said that 'no one' actually owns a corpse.
>
>>but how can that be so, if body-snatching is illegal?
>
>this very point. ISTR it was about somebody who pinched body parts
>from a research hospital. Wish I could remember the verdict.
>
>
made bizzare pieces from the stolen body parts.
Marc Living
<Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>>Indeed. There was a recent case about body snatching which turned on
>>this very point. ISTR it was about somebody who pinched body parts
>>from a research hospital. Wish I could remember the verdict.
>Guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was a sculptor who
>made bizzare pieces from the stolen body parts.
The Court must therefore have concluded that it *is* possible to own a
body.
M.J.Powell
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:11:12 +0100, Robin
><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed. There was a recent case about body snatching which turned on
>>>this very point. ISTR it was about somebody who pinched body parts
>>>from a research hospital. Wish I could remember the verdict.
>
>>Guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was a sculptor who
>>made bizzare pieces from the stolen body parts.
>
>The Court must therefore have concluded that it *is* possible to own a
>body.
I think the parts came from a hospital laboratory.
Mike
--
M.J.Powell.
Philip Baker
<sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
>but true!
Shouldn't minority rights be respected in the case of Christians who
believe in the physical resurrection of the body?
--
Philip Baker
http://www.thalasson.com/hit-counters/
http://www.thalasson.com/guestbook/
Marc Living
What difference does that make?
Philip Baker
<jo...@moran1.karoo.co.uk> writes
>
>
>
>But you are then forced to make that choice, again asserting a right to a
>thing which is already yours. Why should you have to? Why can I not go into
>your home and take your possessions on the basis that you haven't said I
>can't? Because they are your possessions, yours to keep or dispose of as YOU
>see fit before and after death (finance non-withstanding).
>
My understanding is that under English law you don't own your own body -
nobody does and nobody can acquire ownership. (The courts decided
against slavery in various decisions in the 18th c.) After death your
body does not become part of your estate and your next of kin can ignore
any wishes you express in your will concerning the disposal of your
body.
'Droid
>
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.99070...@biochem.bc>, Sunil
> <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
> >Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
> >but true!
>
> Shouldn't minority rights be respected in the case of Christians who
> believe in the physical resurrection of the body?
But not the body they die in, they receive another. If they didn't, why would
some be cremated?
'Droid
Sangraal
>In article <ar$ojJA$u8h3...@thalasson.com>,
>Philip Baker <ph...@thalasson.com> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't minority rights be respected in the case of Christians who
>> believe in the physical resurrection of the body?
I'm not aware of any Christian denominations that believe that the
resurrected body will be the same one they had in this life - though
quite possibly some oddball sect out there believes this and, yes, I
suppose such a group would 'opt out' of organ donorship on religious
grounds and in anything resembling a free society their wishes should be
respected.
>
>I don't think anyone has suggested that the irrational 'beliefs' of the
>deluded are akin to 'rights' or warrant any respect whatsoever.
Ththththththpppppppppp!
--
Sangraal
Robin
OUNCEBACK.claranet.co.uk> writes
>On Sat, 10 Jul 1999 10:11:12 +0100, Robin
><Alp...@droom.demon.co.uk.spam> wrote:
>
>>>Indeed. There was a recent case about body snatching which turned on
>>>this very point. ISTR it was about somebody who pinched body parts
>>>from a research hospital. Wish I could remember the verdict.
>
>>Guilty and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was a sculptor who
>>made bizzare pieces from the stolen body parts.
>
>The Court must therefore have concluded that it *is* possible to own a
>body.
>
>
imagine that it becomes the property of the hospital concerned?
Robin
>In article <Pine.OSF.3.95q.99070...@biochem.bc>, Sunil
><sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>>Remember your organs are of no use to you when you're dead. Strange
>>but true!
>
>believe in the physical resurrection of the body?
Certainly, and that is why you can refuse donation.