BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Legal requirement of opinion - Organ Donations

  
 
pointless & uncalled for
12:32 / 23.02.06
Bill tabled to demand registration for organ donation in Ontario, Canada

In short an MP is tabling a bill that would require all residents of Ontario to register their position on whether they would be willing to have their organs harvested in the event of their death. One would be able to register yes, no or undecided.

Registration would occur at key events such as application for a driver's license or registration for a Health Card (a provincial obligation if one wishes to make use of healthcare provisions). Largely this makes registration inescapable.

The claimed motivation behind this is the large number of provincial residents on long waiting lists for organs that might have been available if a potential doner had registered prior to death.

As someone who supports organ donation as a practice and actively encourages registration I can see the intrinsic medical and practical benefits to such a scheme. However I'm not convinced that there is a case for compulsory registration.
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:21 / 23.02.06
As I understand it though, it's not compulsory donation though. The register records who does and who does not want to be a doner. Seems like a good idea to me.
 
 
sleazenation
13:40 / 23.02.06
Surely such a compulsory registry of organ donation wishes doesn't compel the reluctant or undecided into donating organs against their will, so I have trouble seeing where the compulsion might cause problems, unless one is ideologically opposed to state compulsion, which is is probably another debate...

It certainly seems to be significantly more open to a variety of opinions than the recent suggestion in the UK that organdonation should be made something you opt out of, rather than opt into...
 
 
Tryphena Absent
17:59 / 23.02.06
I think there is a case for compulsory registration. It means that you have to actually consider it seriously, I suspect that a lot of people never register for organ donation because they don't examine it and so remain undecided. If you had to register for, against or as someone who is undecided you would be compelled to think about the position you wanted to take. I think this would only benefit any society.
 
 
Supaglue
09:23 / 24.02.06
Think you're right Nina, there is a lack of thought when it comes to organ donation and I'm sure donation rates would be alot higher if people HAD to think about the issue.

Problem is like Sleaze said - state compulsion. The idea that there is a constructively presumed consent that the state owns your body/organs after death, is one I find difficult to accept. I presume you would have to opt out in advance of death and that builds another level of bureaucracy, state control and information gathering that I would rather do without.

Potentially, it can also ride roughshod over cultural and religious differences regarding the body when the owner shuffles off the coil. Clearly not everyone is going to bother filling the forms or whatever dutring life, particularly in communities, for example, where people are new to the country or don't have English as a first langauge. I suppose religious grounds could be built into any legislation.

The emotive issue of child death could also be a difficult one. And what about aborted foetuses? I wonder if the state automatically has the right to take them for research?

I suppose the way around it would be for state control of organs unless overidden by a next of kin. It'd be interesting to see how the law works in practice and how carefully it's drafted.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
15:04 / 24.02.06
I don't think that this could become a religious issue because there is always the option to refuse. If your religion prohibits donation then your decision is already made for you.

Also the next of kin option is in no sense tenable. Just because a person is your next of kin, it doesn't mean that they will carry out your wishes. This would only attract legitimate legal objections along with proxy and power of attorney issues. No reasonable politician is going to legislate that into existence.

I think my issues here really stem from the state compulsion aspect. Whilst there are some things that you have to do (voter registration, tax returns, etc) these things remain essential to the state and management thereof, which should very clearly be divorced from society. I cannot countenance a situation where the state compels on non-essential issues. It has hallmarks of "slippery slope" and "erosion of civil liberties" stamped all over it and whilst I don't see this as an intrinsic intent it could become contributary in the future.

It's characteristic of the understanding that once a crime has been committed it becomes easier to repeat.

In my opinion there is a necessity to draw up self-correcting criteria by which we can determine absolutes that would prevent legislation compelling decisions and opinion on non-essential matters, even if they are handy and beneficial to society. If the situation that Ontario is currently in arises, then government needs to consider ways of selling what they want in a better fashion rather than forcing us to buy it as is.
 
 
ShadowSax
17:27 / 24.02.06
they could just make it tax deductable to be an organ donor.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
18:01 / 24.02.06
What expense do you consider would be deductable?
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
18:06 / 24.02.06
Also, given that your proposal incurs a loss in revenue, where do you propose making cuts in spending?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:51 / 24.02.06
the first cuts in spending should be in preventative medicine.

--not jack
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
18:55 / 24.02.06
Any particular reason why?

Also that doesn't answer what personal expenses would be deducted for becoming an organ donor.
 
 
ShadowSax
19:28 / 24.02.06
not an expense - the value is something going back to the taxed community. maybe "tax deductable" is too precise. just some tax incentive for signing up for the organ donor program. agree to be an organ donor, get an extra tax exemption.
 
 
ShadowSax
19:32 / 24.02.06
Also, given that your proposal incurs a loss in revenue, where do you propose making cuts in spending?

reduce tax incentives for big business. or increase the tax on something the top .5% has to cover.

just let me know when the law is being drafted and i'll try to help all i can. i'm sure they can cover it somewhere.
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
19:55 / 24.02.06
not an expense - the value is something going back to the taxed community. maybe "tax deductable" is too precise. just some tax incentive for signing up for the organ donor program. agree to be an organ donor, get an extra tax exemption.

Somehow I find the notion of the government buying human organs somewhat less ethically sound than compelling people to decide whether they OK with the idea of making their organs availabe for transplant in the first place.

That doesn't even take into consideration the implications of paying for something that, whilst admitedly in limited supply, is currently free and then burdening business with the cost with no incentive. It lacks any real sense of political savvy.

Now back to the core of the original issue, do you think that a government should be allowed to compel it's populace to make mandatory decisions on issues that are not essential to the state.
 
 
Supaglue
13:46 / 25.02.06
I'm in general aggrement SK, but:

I don't think that this could become a religious issue because there is always the option to refuse. If your religion prohibits donation then your decision is already made for you.

What if your religion prohibits organ donation but for whatever reason you don't register this with the government - can they take your bodyparts? I can see it in effect leading to a registration of certain religions.

Also the next of kin option is in no sense tenable. Just because a person is your next of kin, it doesn't mean that they will carry out your wishes. This would only attract legitimate legal objections along with proxy and power of attorney issues. No reasonable politician is going to legislate that into existence.

I agree, it doesn't mean that the your next of kin would carry out your wishes, but it's no different to the way the system works now: there is a rebuttable consideration for your next of kin's wishes, unless you have a donor card to prove otherwise. Presumed state ownership would reverse this. And if I had to have a default party to decide what happens to my body after my death, I'd rather it be my family.

In my opinion there is a necessity to draw up self-correcting criteria by which we can determine absolutes that would prevent legislation compelling decisions and opinion on non-essential matters, even if they are handy and beneficial to society. If the situation that Ontario is currently in arises, then government needs to consider ways of selling what they want in a better fashion rather than forcing us to buy it as is.

Do you mean like a bill of rights or other entrenchment of civil liberties? It's funny, but I think i'm in favour of a smoking ban in pubs, regulation of harmful substances in foodstuffs, etc. It would be difficult to ascertain a line in the sand which a government could not cross.


I'd like to see what can be done with the organ parts that are taken by the authorities in Ontario - are they to be used for doation only, or will it allow them to be used for other, perhaps more controversial research?


Shadowsax: they could just make it tax deductable to be an organ donor.

So in effect, if you disageree with organ donations, for whatever reason (be it your own ethics, or in particular, having a religion like Jehovah's witness or certain branches of Judaism), you have to pay more tax than people that don't? Is that what income or revenue tax/national insurance/health contributions are for?

It smacks of ideas like giving priority for operations to people who are registered organ donors.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:12 / 25.02.06
So in effect, if you disageree with organ donations, for whatever reason (be it your own ethics, or in particular, having a religion like Jehovah's witness or certain branches of Judaism), you have to pay more tax than people that don't? Is that what income or revenue tax/national insurance/health contributions are for?

Well, the British Government gives tax-cuts to encourage married women to stay at home and bring up children rather than continue their career, so I suppose it could be argued that this is equally unjust. For what it's worth I don't agree with this idea, preferring the opt-out rather than opt-in, although as the Blood Tranfusion Service doesn't like the blood of anyone who's had the gay sex, I wonder whether the NHS would be similarly opposed to their organs.
 
 
sleazenation
14:59 / 25.02.06
What if your religion prohibits organ donation but for whatever reason you don't register this with the government - can they take your bodyparts? I can see it in effect leading to a registration of certain religions.

I think you are missing the point here superglue - if there is a compulsory registry of intent WRT organ donation then a failure to register would be a contravention of this compulsion... compulsion here would likely be a piece of legislation, at which point failure to register intent would be against the law.

Those religious groups and others unwilling to donate organs would thus have not much of a leg to stand on... unless we are talking about cases of accidental death of young people who had not came to an age of majority where they could reasonably be expected to decide what they wanted to do with their organs... In such case I guess it would be down to the next of kin...
 
 
HCE
15:23 / 27.02.06
So somebody could be in the position of not being legally old enough to declare a decision, and having a parent make a decision for you? Say I'm a 15 year old who doesn't want my organs donated because of my religion, and my parents decide to donate them anyway against my wishes. How would that play out?
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
15:39 / 27.02.06
I think that technically the parental wishes would legally exceed those of the minor. However, the closer to the age of majority a child gets, the greyer the area becomes.

To complicate this further the issue of harvesting organs comes with a very strict timeframe, so unless an advocate can predict and pre-empt the untimely demise of a minor then it would be a matter of too little to late. Once the organs are taken they then become property of the state (AFAIK, a whole new legal necessity).

A child could take slender comfort of a post-mortem suit being pursued in their name but I doubt that such a case would endure even a smooth passage through the corridors of justice to penalise parents acting under the influence of grief.
 
 
sleazenation
16:41 / 27.02.06
So somebody could be in the position of not being legally old enough to declare a decision, and having a parent make a decision for you? Say I'm a 15 year old who doesn't want my organs donated because of my religion, and my parents decide to donate them anyway against my wishes. How would that play out?

This seems a vanishingly remote circumstance, if you don't mind my saying, particularly if we contrast it with the common occurrence of minors being forced to follow their parent's religion despite any protestations they might have - this becomes even more onerous when religious practices include genitle mutilation...
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:40 / 27.02.06
the Seldom Killer typed:
Also, given that your proposal incurs a loss in revenue, where do you propose making cuts in spending?

to which I replied
the first cuts in spending should be in preventative medicine.

The Seldom Killer replied:
Any particular reason why?

It was a somewhat facetious statement, meant to draw attention to the reliance on after-the-fact health care, over preventative measures.

wouldn't we all be better off with healthier livers than a more efficient means of having one implanted???

[not advocating letting people die, abandoning transplants and all that, but there are better medical practices in which to invest than transplantation.]

--not jack
 
 
pointless & uncalled for
18:54 / 27.02.06
You do have a point there.

However, whilst it sails very close to state compulsion it is an issue that may well be suited to a seperate thread.

A national program of healthy living wouldn't guarantee an appropriate level of uptake on organ donation to meet the demand derived from non-hedonistic causes.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:33 / 27.02.06
agreed Seldom Killer -

I just wanted to respond to your question - didn't want to derail the thread (there's a thread taking up the issue in the Laboratory: The rights and wrongs of experiments on animals

--not jack
 
  
Add Your Reply