Deemed Consent in Wales.

[HomerJay]

Everybody and anybody has my persimmon to do whatever and whoever they like with my bits after I am dead. Just be gentle.

Long, slow cooking may be required...

Spit Roast?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I need to get CES down to Wales for a visit.

[mistermack]

There is already a tradition of "deemed consent" in Wales, but it applies to sheep, when the welsh lads are feeling horny.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is already a tradition of "deemed consent" in Wales, but it applies to sheep, when the welsh lads are feeling horny.

"Silence means 'yes'."

[Svartalf]

Baaaa means "yes" too.

[Cormac]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

The problem I have is the state declaring ownership of my corpse, and declaring arrogantly that if I object I have to go to the trouble of opting out of THEIR theft of my corpse.

As it happens, I am donating my body to the local university. This isn't about not wanting to donate.

[PsychoSerenity]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

The problem I have is the state declaring ownership of my corpse, and declaring arrogantly that if I object I have to go to the trouble of opting out of THEIR theft of my corpse.

As it happens, I am donating my body to the local university. This isn't about not wanting to donate.

Once you're dead it's not really your corpse, - it's a corpse, but your ability to claim ownership of it expired with you.

[HomerJay]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

The problem I have is the state declaring ownership of my corpse, and declaring arrogantly that if I object I have to go to the trouble of opting out of THEIR theft of my corpse.

As it happens, I am donating my body to the local university. This isn't about not wanting to donate.

The only problem with any opt out is that it relies on the gubmint keeping accurate records, which we know they can't do.

[Cormac]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

The problem I have is the state declaring ownership of my corpse, and declaring arrogantly that if I object I have to go to the trouble of opting out of THEIR theft of my corpse.

As it happens, I am donating my body to the local university. This isn't about not wanting to donate.

Once you're dead it's not really your corpse, - it's a corpse, but your ability to claim ownership of it expired with you.

As it happens, anything I own automatically vests in my next of kin at the moment of my death. (Although the probate may take a while to work through it).

The state has no right to my corpse.

[Cormac]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

The problem I have is the state declaring ownership of my corpse, and declaring arrogantly that if I object I have to go to the trouble of opting out of THEIR theft of my corpse.

As it happens, I am donating my body to the local university. This isn't about not wanting to donate.

The only problem with any opt out is that it relies on the gubmint keeping accurate records, which we know they can't do.

That is one problem, but not the primary problem - which is the state laying claim to something to which it has it has absolutely no right.

[Pappa]

The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.

[JimC]

The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.

In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.

However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.

[Cormac]

The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.

In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.

However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to do. It is still the state laying claim to something to which it has no right at all.

The state should promote donation actively, and should have advocates full time at hospitals to counsel families to do the right thing. Children should be taught that it is a very goodthung to donate, and so on. It should become the cultural norm. But the state should not cross that line.

In my view.

[Pappa]

The State has about as much right to our corpses as it does to tax our hard earned wage or incarcerate us for getting high. It depends entirely on your point of view as "rights" have no objective reality.

In the sense of "natural rights", I agree.

However, a nation should have a background set of clearly stated human rights, enshrined in law and difficult to change, that stands above day-to-day political legislating. Whether this is done in the form of a constitution or otherwise isn't important, as long as they exist.

Having said that, I'm not convinced that such a set of human rights should prevent an opt-out organ donation scheme, as long as it is widely known about, and the opt-out procedure is easy to do.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to do. It is still the state laying claim to something to which it has no right at all.

The state should promote donation actively, and should have advocates full time at hospitals to counsel families to do the right thing. Children should be taught that it is a very goodthung to donate, and so on. It should become the cultural norm. But the state should not cross that line.

In my view.

You could apply the same logic to the State encouraging people to donate money for the public good rather than relying on taxation.

[Kristie]

I detest the idea of presumed consent.

There has to be a presumption one way or the other. This is the correct one.
Opt out if it bothers you.

Those that opt out should not ever be considered as candidates for an organ transplant.

Especially that last bit.