# Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?



## miniaturehoarder (Jun 29, 2015)

Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body? Should governments tell families, "Sorry, their rights end when they do, living people need these organs."  After all, one can't refuse an autopsy on religious grounds IIRC, how much more difference does it make if the organs are not put back into the chest cavity?.


----------



## Bullgrit (Jun 30, 2015)

If the body does not belong to the family, would the family still be held financially responsible for the disposal?

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

1) in most jurisdictions, the state can (generally) only take the organs if the deceased voluntarily gave permission during life. The state taking control of the body away from the family would be...problematic...for legal & religious reasons, and currently requires a warrant.  That means a showing of an important government issue.  Not sure organ harvesting qualifies.

2) if the state DOES take control of the body, who pays for burial?  Who ensures the wishes of the deceased are honored?  If it is to the state, how big a check can I make them pay out to commemorate my death?  Can I get a 20' tall obelisk?

3) religions & autopsies: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1705993-overview


----------



## KirayaTiDrekan (Jun 30, 2015)

I think its important for people to make their wishes clear about that sort of thing before they die.  Living will, will, whatever.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 30, 2015)

Can I will my body to a butcher? 'Cause I think I'd make some mean sirloins.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

You could, but he couldn't sell or serve you to the public.










In most places.
http://www.snopes.com/horrors/cannibal/nigeria.asp

"C'mon down to Hannibal's!!!"


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

miniaturehoarder said:


> Death - should the departed's family have an intrinsic right to the body?




While I'm alive, my body belongs (or certainly _should_ belong) to me. Once I'm dead, therefore, the rights to it should be treated like any other asset - which in the absence of a will likely means they pass to the next of kin.



> Should governments tell families, "Sorry, their rights end when they do, living people need these organs."




No, for the reason I gave above. I'm sympathetic to the needs for donor organs, and indeed fully intend to donate any usable organs after I'm gone, but that shouldn't be the assumption - any more than the government should be able to compel me to donate a kidney while still alive.


----------



## JWO (Jun 30, 2015)

Organ donation should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in scheme, i.e. you specifically have to say that you _don't_ want your organs donated after you die. I think there are a lot of people who would be happy for their organs to be used but haven't gotten around to signing up to it yet, and then their organs get wasted.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

Sorry, but I'll vote no on that every time: opt-in raises fewer ethical concerns.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

Yep, I'm with Dannyalcatraz on this one: they're my organs to give, not yours to take.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

JWO said:


> Organ donation should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in scheme...




Er.  I am not confident that is without significant ethical complications.  

Moreover, I am not comfortable with the precedent of the government declaring domain on me or mine after my passing.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep, I'm with Dannyalcatraz on this one: they're my organs to give, not yours to take.




I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.




The exact same argument works in reverse: if you _do_ want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone _already has_ the opportunity to contribute to the solution.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> The exact same argument works in reverse: if you _do_ want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone _already has_ the opportunity to contribute to the solution.




Except peoples' lives will then depend on other peoples' laziness.  And I personally feel that life outweighs all other considerations that a dead person might have.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.




Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent.  Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?  

If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?

The issue at hand, I suspect, isn't the property rights of the dead, but those of the *living*.  Your wife, for example.  After you die, she's the one with the property rights, not you.


----------



## Morrus (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent.  Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?
> 
> If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?




I haven't drafted a statute or anything. I would hope that any such law would be more comprehensive, and longer by at least three orders of magnitude, than my brief sentence of opinion on a messageboard!


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I haven't drafted a statute or anything. I would hope that any such law would be more comprehensive, and longer by at least three orders of magnitude, than my brief sentence of opinion on a messageboard!




I don't know about English law, but US law has this dicey issue with precedent.  If a law to do a thing is passed, and found to be valid (say, Constitutional), then it becomes much easier to use the same logic to enact other laws, or win court cases.  So, while I actually don't give a hoot what happens to my body, I am *not* comfortable with the idea of involuntary abridgment of property rights.

How about simply making registering a choice about your body mandatory when you reach the age of majority?  You get to say Yea or Nay, but it isn't left to laziness.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent.  Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?
> 
> If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?
> 
> The issue at hand, I suspect, isn't the property rights of the dead, but those of the *living*.  Your wife, for example.  After you die, she's the one with the property rights, not you.




Yep, all of this.



Umbran said:


> I don't know about English law, but US law has this dicey issue with precedent.




Precedent is certainly important in UK law. We don't have a written constitution, so there are even fewer limits on what laws government can and can't pass, though - no concept of something being found unconstitutional!

That said...



> So, while I actually don't give a hoot what happens to my body, I am *not* comfortable with the idea of involuntary abridgment of property rights.




It's perhaps worth noting that both the US constitution and the UK's Human Rights Act explicitly protect property rights, and although these can be overruled in some cases this can only be done following due process (which probably delays things enough that organ donation becomes a non-issue). Of course, there's the question of whether a recently-deceased person is 'property', and whether an exception could be made...

(And, equally, it's worth noting that the current UK government is planning to repeal the Human Rights Act, so some of that may change. Oh, and the Welsh Assembly is considering moving to an opt-out scheme, which if implemented (and not challenged) would likely be followed by Scotland (and, I suspect, England) in fairly short order.)



> How about simply making registering a choice about your body mandatory when you reach the age of majority?  You get to say Yea or Nay, but it isn't left to laziness.




That's probably a good idea, though I'm not entirely sure how workable it is. Certainly, strongly (or more strongly) encouraging people to make a decision whenever applying for a passport/driving license/voter registration would be a good thing.


----------



## Janx (Jun 30, 2015)

Morrus said:


> I'm the opposite. I feel that the life of the living outweighs the property rights of a dead person.




I think here in the US, some of the law is aligned with the law that says it is illegal to sell organs.

One premise being, if there is a market value for you being dead, then some people will find a way to expedite that.  At the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum, that'd be a reason to not check the organ donor box on your driver's license so you don't turn up in a database that some rich guy has access to so he can decide, "looks like Morrus has just the right size liver for me, let's do an early withdrawal."

In any event, here in the US, the option to be a donor is right there when you get an ID/drivers license.

Another detail to the OT.  It is unlawful to posess human remains (barring proper paperwork).  So regular joe schmoe is getting the body of their dead relative anyway.  Thus there is no intrinsic right to the body by virtue of the law saying you can't have the body in your posession.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> That's probably a good idea, though I'm not entirely sure how workable it is.




In the US, every male must register for Selective Service (the draft) within 30 days of reaching their 18th birthday, and must maintain information with selective service until age 25.  Several other things (like access to student loans) is linked to being registered.  The Government Accounting Office estimated they had something like 92% compliance in 2010.

So, it seems entirely workable, to me.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> In the US, every male must register for Selective Service (the draft) within 30 days of reaching their 18th birthday...
> 
> So, it seems entirely workable, to me.




Yep, that would do it. Well, for half the population anyway.

We don't have any direct equivalent over here.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep, that would do it. Well, for half the population anyway.




The point is that nigh-universal registration for a thing is quite workable.  We already do it for half the population - extending it to the other half is merely a question of handing them the forms, too.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The point is that nigh-universal registration for a thing is quite workable.




It can certainly be done. My suspicion, though, is that there may be stronger vested interests who want to keep the draft records up to date than there would be for donor registration. But I may be wrong - I tend to be quite pessimistic about such things.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

Janx said:


> Another detail to the OT.  It is unlawful to posess human remains (barring proper paperwork).  So regular joe schmoe is getting the body of their dead relative anyway.  Thus there is no intrinsic right to the body by virtue of the law saying you can't have the body in your posession.




While the old saw is that possession is 9/10ths of the law, we should not conflate the ability to have something in your physical possession with the right to make decisions about a thing's disposition.  I mean, I can own mineral rights to a huge tract of land.  It doesn't fit in my pocket, and even if I am standing on it, it can be too large to consider it in my physical possession.  However, I still have rights to determine how, or if, those minerals are managed.

So, just because you can't keep Uncle Jed in your freezer, doesn't mean you have no right over what happens to his remains.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> We don't have any direct equivalent over here.




Do you have national or regional ID cards?   Make checking the box a requirement for getting one once you are an adult.  Done.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, I am not comfortable with that precedent.  Note how you've already generalized it to "property rights"?
> 
> If they can take your body and use it to save lives, why not take your other property, too?



That is a slippery slop type argument. And besides, it is already done with estate taxes.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

delericho said:


> The exact same argument works in reverse: if you _do_ want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone _already has_ the opportunity to contribute to the solution.




Except it doesn't work. So chances need to be done to make it work. 

It is generally always the same, when its everyone's problem its no one's problem (so nothing happens). This is why sometimes the state needs to intervene.


----------



## delericho (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Do you have national or regional ID cards?




No. There was talk of bringing them in, but it was scrapped in 2010. We have a National Insurance card, but that gets issued automatically. The closest to an ID card are our driving license and passport. Most people have one or the other, but not all.

But, yes, they could of course make it a requirement that you make a statement to get one of those documents.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 30, 2015)

Janx said:


> One premise being, if there is a market value for you being dead, then some people will find a way to expedite that.  At the tinfoil hat end of the spectrum, that'd be a reason to not check the organ donor box on your driver's license so you don't turn up in a database that some rich guy has access to so he can decide, "looks like Morrus has just the right size liver for me, let's do an early withdrawal."




This.  I'm glad there is a strong wall between organs (and other body parts) and the notion that they would be treated the same as other assets.

If organs have a commercial value, could they be seized in bankruptcy? Or, could I gamble away the rights to my liver, or eyes?

If I have a rare blood type, can I be forced to provide regular blood donations to defray an obligation?

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That is a slippery slop type argument.




Only to a degree.  The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.

I am merely saying I am not comfortable with the precedent.



> And besides, it is already done with estate taxes.




Estate taxes aren't a flat commandeering of assets - they are a tax, and the estate gets to choose what gets liquidated to pay them, which keeps it from being an imposition on property rights.  And they don't generally apply to assets transferred to your spouse, and the Federal version doesn't apply if your estate is under $5+ million dollars.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you do not want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. It will solve many health problems due to lack of available organs. Health is a social issue and everyone would get the opportunity to contribute to the solution.






delericho said:


> The exact same argument works in reverse: if you _do_ want to give your organs, just sign the card and it will be done. Everyone _already has_ the opportunity to contribute to the solution.




Problem here with opt-out: not everyone has or is even eligible to have "the card" in question.  (In the USA, it is usually part of the driver's license or state-issue ID card.)  Die without the relevant ID, a child not in the presence of guardians, or if you are somehow not immediately identifiable, etc., and the state can harvest your organs- remember, time is critical, so the state will be in a hurry.  

If this is against your faith or you are not a resident of the country, the state has just interfered with your religious practices at a VERY key point or has harvested organs from someone who didn't have a say at all in the decision.

Cue the massive lawsuits.


----------



## Janx (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Only to a degree.  The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.




I've recently heard it described as "One man's slipper slope is another man's progress"

I really hate the "slippery slope" objection being used to anything.  it's a sloppy argument for not taking action.  The point of checks and balances and government and voting and all that crap is to take a step in a direction, and if it don't work out, back up.  And to say no, if the next step is too far.

I realize Common Sense ain't all that common, but those of us who have it can usually see a path of doing something, without going too far.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

Janx said:


> I really hate the "slippery slope" objection being used to anything.  it's a sloppy argument for not taking action.




Sometimes, it can be.  But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy".  It is the opposite of sloppy.  And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 30, 2015)

I think a problem here is slope being steep (or, equivalently, there are strong forces which might push us down it), regardless of whether it is slippery.  And, increases in medical technology have been making the slope steeper, the forces stronger, by making more types of transplants feasible.

Organs for transplants are (apparently) in high demand.  A quick look for statistics finds this, but I worry about bias: http://donatelife.net/statistics/.  Still, I can believe that the presentation is largely true and there are many more candidates than donors available.

This is the sort of information which I typically come across in this space:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/24/illegal-organ-trafficking_n_244686.html

Also:

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...ing-organs-would-create-an-economic-class-war

And:

http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Faculty/Hansmanntheeconomicsandethics.pdf

From what I've read, this is an area subject to strong disagreements, with a very predictable alignments of the argument for and against.  The space seems ... unstable, with arguments very likely to heat up.

---

Organ harvesting is a strong trope in science fiction.  See, for example, "The Patchwork Girl", by Niven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patchwork_Girl.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> Organ harvesting is a strong trope in science fiction.  See, for example, "The Patchwork Girl", by Niven: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Patchwork_Girl.




It was a thing, for Niven.  See also, "The Jigsaw Man"  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jigsaw_Man


----------



## Janx (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Sometimes, it can be.  But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy".  It is the opposite of sloppy.  And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.




those are 2 different things.

"Don't do X, because it will have the following unintended consequence" is specific, logical and raises a risk/problem to be addressed.

"Don't do X, because later, they will come back and do Y on the grounds that if X was good, Y must also be good" is stonewalling and resisting change for the paranoia that they'll go farther, rather than society will prevent going too far.

Of course there are obvious exceptions (OCTAOE as abbreviated by Scott Adams)

But things like the Gun Show Loop Hole (not doing background checks for buying a gun at a gun show) never gets addressed because "that's a slippery slope to taking away my guns"

Never mind that a gun check takes 10-20 minutes in Texas (bought my S&W SD9 in less than half an hour on a friday evening at a gun shop).  It's trivial and quick nowadays.

Now if somebody raised an unintended consequence issue with closing that GSLH, that's a fine discussion.  That ain't the slippery slope argument we get down here.


----------



## Janx (Jun 30, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I think a problem here is slope being steep (or, equivalently, there are strong forces which might push us down it), regardless of whether it is slippery.  And, increases in medical technology have been making the slope steeper, the forces stronger, by making more types of transplants feasible.
> 
> Organs for transplants are (apparently) in high demand.  A quick look for statistics finds this, but I worry about bias: http://donatelife.net/statistics/.  Still, I can believe that the presentation is largely true and there are many more candidates than donors available.




Whatever happened to technology like the artificial heart (Jarvic's pimping pills on TV now)?  Seems like our tech level has risen, and work on improving artificial parts hasn't been talked about.


----------



## tomBitonti (Jun 30, 2015)

Janx said:


> Whatever happened to technology like the artificial heart (Jarvic's pimping pills on TV now)?  Seems like our tech level has risen, and work on improving artificial parts hasn't been talked about.




I wondered about that.  Today, there seems to be increasing demand for transplant organs.  But later, we may be able to grow replacement organs.  (I've seen some articles on building organs, starting from a scaffolding, and talking about issues in having secondary tissues, like blood vessels, grow properly.)  Or do better repairs.  Or manufacture artificial replacements.  The tide may turn and decrease demand.  Technology won't push this in just one direction.

Working out the net effect might be hard: We learn enough to make replacements possible in one area, but get good enough to do transplants in two new areas.

I wonder though, about non-vital organs.  If a football player can put his health at risk (knees, head, &etc) for a hefty salary, should I be able to sell one of my knee joints for a million dollars?  For 10 million?  Would I be willing to sell a cornea for a million dollars?

The problem, seems to me, is that the million dollar price would be an exception, with cases involving vital organs and lower prices being much more common.  Using software contracting as a guide, there would be a lot of middle men taking a cut of the value of a donated organ, and lots of folks taken advantage of.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

Janx said:


> "Don't do X, because later, they will come back and do Y on the grounds that if X was good, Y must also be good" is stonewalling and resisting change for the paranoia that they'll go farther, rather than society will prevent going too far.




You say I'm stonewalling.  I say you're passing the buck.

Sometimes, the time to resist going farther is *now*, rather than depending on "society" to prevent abuse and unforeseen consequences later on.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Only to a degree.  The bad form of slippery slope is when you say that you will certainly slide down the slope, without giving rationale for how or why.
> 
> I am merely saying I am not comfortable with the precedent.



Come on. Try it. All the cool nations are doing it. Like Austria. You're not going to say Austria ain't cool, now are you? Austria gave us Vienna, Conchita Wurst and Hitl... Never mind. 



> Estate taxes aren't a flat commandeering of assets - they are a tax, and the estate gets to choose what gets liquidated to pay them, which keeps it from being an imposition on property rights.  And they don't generally apply to assets transferred to your spouse, and the Federal version doesn't apply if your estate is under $5+ million dollars.



That 5 million is an aberration to discuss for another thread, but yeah, there is a legal frame around estate taxes. It isn't like there wouldn't be one around organs. 

Honestly, this seems like reflexive USian cultural distrust toward guvernment more than anything else.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Problem here with opt-out: not everyone has or is even eligible to have "the card" in question.  (In the USA, it is usually part of the driver's license or state-issue ID card.)  Die without the relevant ID, a child not in the presence of guardians, or if you are somehow not immediately identifiable, etc., and the state can harvest your organs- remember, time is critical, so the state will be in a hurry.
> 
> If this is against your faith or you are not a resident of the country, the state has just interfered with your religious practices at a VERY key point or has harvested organs from someone who didn't have a say at all in the decision.
> 
> Cue the massive lawsuits.




So why not have the law say you cannot harvest organs if someone doesn't have "the" card on them? Honestly, that is just one more argument for a nation wide USian voter card. 

And with present day technology, this sort of argument seems outdated.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jun 30, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Sometimes, it can be.  But let us be clear - recognizing the possible unintended consequences of an action is not "sloppy".  It is the opposite of sloppy.  And having nasty unintended consequences is a very good reason to not take an action.




But ain't that the reasoning behind "If gays can get married, why not polygamist, zoophiles and the dreaded pedophiles!?".


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Come on. Try it. All the cool nations are doing it. Like Austria. You're not going to say Austria ain't cool, now are you? Austria gave us Vienna, Conchita Wurst and Hitl... Never mind.








> That 5 million is an aberration to discuss for another thread, but yeah, there is a legal frame around estate taxes. It isn't like there wouldn't be one around organs.




And, interestingly, those who have $5 million+ for estates question the tax as an imposition, even with the legal framework.  The real point to it was about property rights - unless you don't pay, the government cannot order you to pay your taxes with any specific piece of property.



> Honestly, this seems like reflexive USian cultural distrust toward guvernment more than anything else.




It isn't reflexive.  It is considered.  There's lots of places where I quite accept government action - I wouldn't mind some sensible gun-control laws, for example.  This is not one that I think is a great idea.  It isn't like I'd start claiming I'd move to Canada over it, but I don't like the principle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 30, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So why not have the law say you cannot harvest organs if someone doesn't have "the" card on them?




That makes it functionally equivalent to a less efficient version of the status quo- no need to change the law.


> a nation wide USian voter card.




Doesn't cover minors and assorted otherwise qualified- and potentially willing- nonvoters.

(Now that I'm no longer at the grocery...)

It also doesn't mesh well with the current political atmosphere in which voter suppression tactics are being used to purge the rolls.

It doesn't mesh well with decisions regarding those with a legal inability to consent or deny.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But ain't that the reasoning behind "If gays can get married, why not polygamist, zoophiles and the dreaded pedophiles!?".




That's the claimed reason.  However, as Danny and I and others have noted, those things do not, and cannot, follow as part of the current law.

Nobody has done that for my suggestion yet.  The defense has been, "Nobody would allow that to happen," as if we are all that good at forbidding things happening


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Doesn't cover minors and assorted otherwise qualified- and potentially willing- nonvoters.




Minors have people who are legally responsible for them that make that decision for them.

I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea.  Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Minors have people who are legally responsible for them that make that decision for them.




Right.

My point was that in an opt-out system, the default would be you could harvest the organs of deceased minors & incompetents without the input of their legal guardians.  Presumably, to avoid this, the law would be drafted to require consent of a guardian in those cases.

...which is the default position in the current opt-in system.  So why change?



Umbran said:


> I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea.  Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.




It doesn't persuade me, either.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> I would like to see someone actually show stats that involuntary confiscation of organs would actually be a good idea.  Given the questionable ethics and precedent, I need somewhat more than, "We are short organs, so we should be allowed to take them!" as an argument.




What, and then you'll enact the appropriate laws?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2015)

No question it would increase the amount of organs available.

The question is would it do so by a significant enough of a margin to outweigh the inevitable unintentional screw-ups and deliberate malfeasance.

Considering what I know of the current medical/legal system in the USA, my bet would be "no."


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> What, and then you'll enact the appropriate laws?




No, but my opinion might change.  I do that on occasion, you know - change my opinion based on solid information.


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Jul 1, 2015)

( redacted )


----------



## miniaturehoarder (Jul 1, 2015)

Janx said:


> From what I've read, this is an area subject to strong disagreements, with a very predictable alignments of the argument for and against.  The space seems ... unstable, with arguments very likely to heat up.



Oh yes, this topic is a potential nuke. It pits political ideologies, religious beliefs and family tragedies head to head in a manner that could give a Pachycephalosaurus a migraine.


----------



## delericho (Jul 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> That 5 million is an aberration to discuss for another thread, but yeah, there is a legal frame around estate taxes. It isn't like there wouldn't be one around organs.




The problem is that that legal frame takes considerable time to work through, especially if there are challenges to the initial assessment (which is not uncommon, especially with larger estates). When dealing with estates, that's not a problem - it's a nuisance while the process works through but they'll get there in the end.

With organ donation they _can't_ wait while the process goes through. There's a fairly narrow window of opportunity for harvesting vital organs, and once it closes it doesn't reopen.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 1, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That makes it functionally equivalent to a less efficient version of the status quo- no need to change the law.



Still better than the present situation. 



> Doesn't cover minors and assorted otherwise qualified- and potentially willing- nonvoters.



Austrian law is pretty interesting. Either have a ID card on you that says you opted out or use the national registry. 
http://www.bmeia.gv.at/en/embassy/c...ing-to-austria/organ-donation-in-austria.html

It is pretty simple and Austria hasn't devolved into an organ harvesting dictatorship... Yet.



> It also doesn't mesh well with the current political atmosphere in which voter suppression tactics are being used to purge the rolls.



Wouldn't a national voter ID card issued to anyone who registers to vote crush voter supression tactics? Or what Clinton is proposing, register once and you're registered for life. This is how it works here. 



> It doesn't mesh well with decisions regarding those with a legal inability to consent or deny.



As always, legal guardians are there for some reason. But it doesn't matter, when your dead, your dead, whether your 10 year old or mentally challenged.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 1, 2015)

delericho said:


> The problem is that that legal frame takes considerable time to work through, especially if there are challenges to the initial assessment (which is not uncommon, especially with larger estates). When dealing with estates, that's not a problem - it's a nuisance while the process works through but they'll get there in the end.
> 
> With organ donation they _can't_ wait while the process goes through. There's a fairly narrow window of opportunity for harvesting vital organs, and once it closes it doesn't reopen.




I mean you work out the legal details of the opt-out system before putting it in place. Seems to work for Austria, Belgium and Spain.

I'm sure there are kinks in the system and they aren't above lawsuits, but so what? No human made law or institution will be perfect. Imperfection doesn't mean it shouldn't be put in place.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 1, 2015)

Umbran said:


> The real point to it was about property rights - unless you don't pay, the government cannot order you to pay your taxes with any specific piece of property.



You just named an instance of guvernment seizing private property. And if you do not want to, you opt-out. Pretty simple. 



> It isn't reflexive.  It is considered.



I disagree on that one.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Wouldn't a national voter ID card issued to anyone who registers to vote crush voter supression tactics? Or what Clinton is proposing, register once and you're registered for life. This is how it works here.




Not in the least.  One of the most common suppression tactics is to try to require an ID, and then make it difficult to get an ID - lots of folks in lower income brackets can't take a day off work to go and stand in line at a registrar's office, or don't have permanent addresses, copies of birth certificates, and the other things that the'd use to prove who they are.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I disagree on that one.




Because you are a telepath?  You know what's going on inside my head better than I do, to know if I am reacting reflexively, or with consideration?  Despite never having had a conversation with me except in plain text, and not much of that, even?

Right.  Sure.

We are done here, goldomark.  You were doing well for a while, but this isn't acceptable.  Please learn to stop before you make such statements in the future.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the classic start of argument territory.  Do not do what goldo here has just done, as it is pretty darned rude.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not in the least.  One of the most common suppression tactics is to try to require an ID, and then make it difficult to get an ID - lots of folks in lower income brackets can't take a day off work to go and stand in line at a registrar's office, or don't have permanent addresses, copies of birth certificates, and the other things that the'd use to prove who they are.




Yup, but if the federal guvernment issues a voter ID for all voters who register, the question of mandatory IDs is taken care of as that ID is provided. Now the urdle becomes registration, but that is another issue.


----------



## delericho (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Yup, but if the federal guvernment issues a voter ID for all voters who register, the question of mandatory IDs is taken care of...




It would be. But the problem is that vested interests _don't want_ that ID issue taken care of, because it is in their interest if the votes of the poor are suppressed (because they think they'll vote for the other guy).

And, unfortunately, it's those same vested interests that have their hands on the levers of power, and to get them out you would need to win the votes _of the very people who have been suppressed_. It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve _any_ of them without solving _all_ of them. Which, of course, you can't do.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Now the urdle becomes registration, but that is another issue.




Maybe, maybe not - depends on what is necessary for registration.  If, for example, you have to prove you are a citizen, or a resident, the exact same issues are involved.  Making voter registration difficult is another common suppression tactic.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 2, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve _any_ of them without solving _all_ of them. Which, of course, you can't do.




Well, there are some signs of cracks in that structure.  Recently, the Supreme Court found that a commission set up in Arizona to do redistricting was Constitutional.

IIRC, the people voted for a commission of 5 - two republican, two Democrat, and a fifth chosen by the first four.  This commission is separate from the state legislature, and not answerable to the legislature.  Thus, gerrymandering power is removed from the people who most want to gerrymander.  Then, you start getting districts that are no longer engineered to give particular results in elections, the will of the populace is more clearly represented.

Not a silver bullet, of course, but a step in the right direction.


----------



## delericho (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Not a silver bullet, of course, but a step in the right direction.




Indeed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

delericho said:


> It would be. But the problem is that vested interests _don't want_ that ID issue taken care of, because it is in their interest if the votes of the poor are suppressed (because they think they'll vote for the other guy).
> 
> And, unfortunately, it's those same vested interests that have their hands on the levers of power, and to get them out you would need to win the votes _of the very people who have been suppressed_. It's a very neat arrangement, because each problem could be solved if only one other problem were solved first, and yet because the dependencies are circular you actually can't solve _any_ of them without solving _all_ of them. Which, of course, you can't do.




Well, the very people who's right to vote is being attacked do vote as there are groups that fight for them. Obama's victories have been achieved in part because of minorities who's right to vote is under attack managed to vote for him. It isn't just tilted to one side, but is a never ending battle. This is why a national voter ID card could trump local voter ID laws that are ment to supress voter and end that particular battle. In theory at least. 

Of course, if supressing votes is in the interest of one party, it means expending it is in the interests of another party. Protecting voter rights might not be done for the most noble ideals. But so what? Doing the right thing is what is important. Besides, maybe now minorities tend to vote for one party, but things can change. Black people use to vote for Republicans en mass until the 60s/70s.


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Maybe, maybe not - depends on what is necessary for registration.  If, for example, you have to prove you are a citizen, or a resident, the exact same issues are involved.  Making voter registration difficult is another common suppression tactic.




Indeed. I wonder how much registration is really necessary and what can but put into place instead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Yup, but if the federal guvernment issues a voter ID for all voters who register, the question of mandatory IDs is taken care of as that ID is provided. Now the urdle becomes registration, but that is another issue.




Yep- a constitutional one.  Voting rights, by and large, are controlled at the State level.  The Feds can only step in when the States start playing games about denying people the right to vote.

IOW, you'd probably need a constitutional Amendment to be able to issue a Federal Voter ID card.

(And, FWIW, the same issue applies to drivers licenses.)


----------



## Kramodlog (Jul 2, 2015)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Yep- a constitutional one.  Voting rights, by and large, are controlled at the State level.  The Feds can only step in when the States start playing games about denying people the right to vote.
> 
> IOW, you'd probably need a constitutional Amendment to be able to issue a Federal Voter ID card.
> 
> (And, FWIW, the same issue applies to drivers licenses.)




The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.




The Feds still do. What the SCOTUS decision mainly did was kill the existing list of areas under Federal scrutiny. Congress can generate another set of areas, but they almost certainly won't as long as the GOP can torpedo efforts to do so. When there was the old list, it was seen as politically damaging to vote against any re-authorization. And while it may still be politically damaging to vote against anything involved in the existing Voting Rights Act, getting the political will and agreement together to set up the scrutiny anew is going to be very hard without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and majority in the House.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 2, 2015)

goldomark said:


> The fed still can have a say in state elections when it is about civil rights. At least it use to, before scotus invalidated parts of the Voting Rights Act.




As noted, the Feds do still get involved with the civil rights aspects of voting laws- that's what I was talking about, albeit obliquely.  (Sorry.)

But they cannot issue voter ID laws.  That power is reserved to the states.


----------



## bone_naga (Jul 5, 2015)

On the voter ID issue, I recall being asked for my ID when I voted. It wasn't a big deal. Of course that may depend on exactly what ID is needed. If it's pretty much anything that shows that you are who you say you are, like anything that could get you into a bar, then I don't see much of an issue. If it's "hey we need this specific ID issued by the state that requires your birth certificate, social security card, another ID, and the blood of a virgin to acquire" then it is a problem.

I'd also like to point out that most people have no problem requiring an ID to purchase a gun. If it's discriminatory in one case, why not in the other?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 5, 2015)

> If it's "hey we need this specific ID issued by the state that requires your birth certificate, social security card, another ID, and the blood of a virgin to acquire" then it is a problem.




It's a combination of precisely that kind of hoop-jumping that is required in the states where it gets knocked down, coupled with shortening voting hours, limiting the number of days of early voting, more stringent requirements for voting by mail, etc., that add up to voter suppression.

In addition, the voting ID requirement in particular is being sold to the public as a solution for a problem that almost literally does not exist.  In the past 30 years, of the literally billions of votes cast at the state and national level, there have been fewer than 500 cases prosecuted for in-person voter fraud (the only kind voter ID laws affect), with only a couple dozen convictions.  _Nationwide._  In the process, hundreds of thousands of voters have either been struck from the rolls entirely, or forced to vote by other, provisional methods which are only counted when elections are otherwise close.

It's nasty business all around.



> I'd also like to point out that most people have no problem requiring an ID to purchase a gun. If it's discriminatory in one case, why not in the other?




1) in the case of gun ownership, requiring ID is the first step in initiating a background check to ascertain whether you are legally barred from owning a weapon that could kill people.

2) since voting is the more fundamental right- the one which safeguards all others- the government has a higher burden of proving that you should have it denied.  When, as pointed out, the reward of combating largely mythological in-person voter fraud is vastly outweighed by the demonstrable risk of disenfranchising voters there is a serious problem.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Jul 5, 2015)

What do you need the body for? Are you short on protein?
Seriously, though, what do you need the body for?
Like many other factors of culture, the need for a body for "closure" or the corpse to be present in any way at the memorial service makes no sense to me. Then again, I'm one of those freaks that doesn't see the need for a memorial service in the first place. (Just call me "Bones")

On the other hand, if there is no body, it is harder for the cemeteries to have 300% voter turn-out.


----------

