It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proposal: All New Yorkers Become Organ Donors

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Proposal: All New Yorkers Become Organ Donors


wcbstv.com

Assemblyman Brodsky Introduces Bill That Would Give State The Right To Decide If You Are To Give The Gift Of Life

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

Legal experts said if the law is passed, it will likely face challenges in court from family members or some religious groups.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Now your body is not your body, but the property of the state. To suggest that the state should be able to determine what to do with your organs upon death absent you're opting out of the program is, in my opinion, offensive.

Firstly, it violates a number of religions in a serious way and that someone would have to research what to do should they die in order to stay within their religous beliefs is wrong.

Secondly, it is an intrusion to a private decision. Folks don't opt out, which is one of the reasons for opt in/opt out clauses. The folks running the game always want the "opt out" rather than the "opt-in" because they know folks don't opt out.

I guess I should not be surprised. The government already wants to take all of your money when you die, makes sense to add a kidney and lung into the mix.

I'm an organ donor and always have been. I think its the right choice. I also believe that I should have to opt into that program, rather than opt out.

wcbstv.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
Surprise surprise..you have no freedom, you own nothing, not even your own body..you have no rights and YOU ARE JUST A PIECE OF MEAT.
How nice.

Edit to add..
I'll gladly donate my middle finger.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by AccessDenied]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dolphinfan
 


Yes because its not a good idea to become an organ donor after all. I would have agreed yes, but then I read that they move quite quickly and don't use anaesthesia because they think you're dead and it would damage the organ, I can't remember where I read it but there signs that the person was in pain.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Unity_99]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:09 PM
link   
this is more government BS, although i must admit, that rep. brodsky or whatever can have my ***hole.
yeah i went there. it wont pass...



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by TheCoffinman
 


It would appear that his is functioning just fine, despite the genetic mutation that located it where his personality should be.

I have a really good idea for Mr. Brodsky and any other member of he public trust. Read the Constitution or resign and save the taxpayers a few bucks on your trial and imprisonment/execution for treason . Thank you.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
Why wouldn't you want to donate your organs to someone to save their life after you're dead?

I wasn't even aware that selfishness continued on after death.

I'll bet the people who say "Oh, because they might take my organs out while I'm still alive!" have been outside during a lightning storm and never got struck.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
This is a really bad idea. From a medical standpoint, tuberculosis is on the rise again and does not only infect the lungs. A biopsy or aspiration would be required and by the time the results came back, the window for transplant may be missed. There are plenty of other genetic defects and diseases that would jeopardize the process. Hopefully only healthy people are currently on donation lists.

Ethically, by consenting, you are essentially giving doctors the right to decide when your situation is beyond recovery. Life saving intervention might have otherwise been initiated and implemented, but you are giving your consent. Your quality of life prognosis vs. the recipient's.

Giving the state the ability to make this call goes beyond ethics and reasonable medical practices.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Just to combat the fear mongering - the bill just says that the default is now to "opt in" instead of "out" of the organ donor program.

Clearly it says you have the ability to "opt out" if you want to, you just have to actually do it.

Again - all this bill does is change the default answer from "No" to "Yes" for the question "Do you want to be an organ donor?"



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


That is not the issue. As I said, I'm an organ donor and my wife and kids are organ donors. The issue is about making it the assumption that you are one. Few folks opt out of things. When you make it an opt-in you are certain about what the person's wishes were.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
This is a really bad idea. From a medical standpoint, tuberculosis is on the rise again and does not only infect the lungs. A biopsy or aspiration would be required and by the time the results came back, the window for transplant may be missed. There are plenty of other genetic defects and diseases that would jeopardize the process. Hopefully only healthy people are currently on donation lists.

Ethically, by consenting, you are essentially giving doctors the right to decide when your situation is beyond recovery. Life saving intervention might have otherwise been initiated and implemented, but you are giving your consent. Your quality of life prognosis vs. the recipient's.

Giving the state the ability to make this call goes beyond ethics and reasonable medical practices.


That's putting it simply. Let's not forget that a physician not involved with the transplant must declare the patient dead. After that in many areas, the family or spouse, etc... of the dead patient must be consulted, and give consent (even if the dead patient already has) before transplant can even be considered.

Beyond the variety of laws concerning organ donation, the United States has given power to the state to decide this, nearly 30 years ago. Even so, relatives can still 100% deny that the donor's organs be harvested and none shall be taken no matter where the dead party has explicitly stated that they want to donate their organs.

But hey, you can continue to be so convinced that the physicians, morgue, coroner, hospital staff, chief of medicine, board of directors, hospital attorney's, relatives of the deceased, guy who carries it in ice, etc... etc... are all in cahoots..



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


That is not the issue. As I said, I'm an organ donor and my wife and kids are organ donors. The issue is about making it the assumption that you are one. Few folks opt out of things. When you make it an opt-in you are certain about what the person's wishes were.


Few folks opt out of things??? Is that the best you can come up with?

That basically means "Protect the ignorant and lazy people" from consideration and consultation with surviving relatives about organ donation.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Why wouldn't you want to donate your organs to someone to save their life after you're dead?

I wasn't even aware that selfishness continued on after death.





Has it occurred that what is being proposed is far more stealth than the average response such as yourself.

Think beyond your influence as an entity.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Why wouldn't you want to donate your organs to someone to save their life after you're dead?

I wasn't even aware that selfishness continued on after death.





Has it occurred that what is being proposed is far more stealth than the average response such as yourself.

Think beyond your influence as an entity.


Has it ever occurred to you that you may be a fear-mongering paranoid entity?



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by RestingInPieces

Originally posted by tristar

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
Why wouldn't you want to donate your organs to someone to save their life after you're dead?

I wasn't even aware that selfishness continued on after death.





Has it occurred that what is being proposed is far more stealth than the average response such as yourself.

Think beyond your influence as an entity.


Has it ever occurred to you that you may be a fear-mongering paranoid entity?


I doubt it, trust me on this one, although trust is gained though longevity. We assure you, what you think, breath, feel, as an educated cell organism, is a direct response from us. Does this sound odd ? , beyond the box ? .

Here is trivial question"

What are your memories based on television, then research the studios, then perhaps you may begin to understand my sig. Hello.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


I don't think I said anything about being in cahoots. I said that by consenting you are making the decision. There may still be instances today where the family is not consulted, nor is it required:

Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action (2006), Presumed Consent

[edit on 28-4-2010 by elfie]



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 07:20 PM
link   
I still can't get past the fact that if I donate an organ, whether I am alive (like a kidney), or dead, my gift is charged to the person recieving my gift at an 100% profit for the gov't and hospitals. This law will be stricken as unconstitutional if passed.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfie
reply to post by RestingInPieces
 


I don't think I said anything about being in cahoots. I said that by consenting you are making the decision. There may still be instances today where the family is not consulted, nor is it required:

Organ Donation: Opportunities for Action (2006), Presumed Consent

[edit on 28-4-2010 by elfie]


I'm guessing that you didn't really read any of that, did you?

If by "instances" you mean during a medical examination (autopsy) after the chest cavity has been split open, lungs exposed... with entrails hanging out, blood drained; skull cracked, brain oxidized, etc.. etc.. etc..

Are you talking about when they remove corneas for the benefit of blindness research without having to track down next of kin?

... but I forgot...

Does this all happen before or after the body is sewed back up, put in a box, and buried in the ground. I think it's between that and when they decompose and get digested by worms and plants.



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 10:57 PM
link   
If some of you are so strongly against this proposal, then write Assemblyman Brodsky and voice your concern, like I just did. As a matter of fact, I just emailed him moments ago. Instead of waiting for "someone else" to do it, take it in to your own hands and write the guy.


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on Apr, 28 2010 @ 11:13 PM
link   
First of all, as someone here put it so well, and I echo the sentiment - We're all just a 'piece of meat'... In the governments eyes of course.

Second.

Could you clarify this statement with some fact please?

This one =


The government already wants to take all of your money when you die


Thanks.

peace



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join