Anyone Ever See The Movie “Extreme Measures?”
Written by Mockarena // May 3, 2010 // The Makeover And/Or Miscellaneous // 34 Comments
Because that’s what the crazy crap going on in New York right now reminds me of.
Specifically, New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-uh), has introduced a bill that would automatically enroll all New Yorkers as organ donors. I am not making this up.
Now, you can opt out, but that obviously requires action of some sort. And since it’s the government, you can pretty much rely on the fact that the action required to opt out will be cumbersome and complicated and full of bureaucratic red tape nonsense.
I don’t know about you guys, but this is about the most fracked-up law I’ve ever heard of. What’s next? Are we going to have automatic elections whereby a Democrat is elected UNLESS you come to the polls to opt-out?
It should come as no surprise to anyone that this very idea was proposed by Cass Sunstein, in a book he co-authored in 2008. Cass Sunstein is a radical wackjob who we’ve written about before, and is also Obama’s Regulation Czar. And he’s someone you should be totally creeped out by.
In his book, he and his co-author write that “The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members.” They believe that this problem could be solved if organ donation occurs by “presumed consent” – which means precisely what Brodsky is proposing – that the government will assume people WANT to be organ donors UNLESS they explicitly choose not to be. They contend that, “Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate.”
And more horrifyingly, they wrote that, “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”
And here’s the real kicker. In true liberal progressive form, they said, “The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else.”
There’s that whole, “You can’t possibly know what’s good for you without government intrusion” thing again. Liberals seem to just really really love that. And you know what just totally confuses me? That they’re completely ok with nonsense like auto-enrollment as organ donors, they’re completely ok with fines for inactivity (see mandated health insurance coverage), and yet they are FLIPPING THE FREAK OUT over the possibility of being asked to show ID (HORRORS!!!) if they happen to be doing something suspicious in Arizona which would trigger a cop to question them.
What in the holy hell?
34 Comments on "Anyone Ever See The Movie “Extreme Measures?”"
i look at it this way: the doctors and hospitals make plenty of money via organ donors, as do the insurance companies.
the organ donor gets a pat on the back, while the recipient still has to pay for their end.
if the doctors want mine, my starting price is $20,000 and upwards from there, payable to my surviving spouse.
i know that sounds cold, but the reality of it is everyone else is making money, so why shouldn’t i?
These lefties are fricking loonies!!!!! I am an organ donor BY CHOICE! These idiots have no right to demand anything of anyone in America…This is still a free country (or at least they say it is – it DAMN SURE DOESN’T FEEL LIKE IT!) I agree – what in the holy hell is going on??/ What can we do? I am a Tea Party CHIC too!!!!! Good luck! Keep up the good work!
Nevermind extreme measures! How about Monty Python… “We’ve come for your liver..”
But I’m not dead yet. I’m still using it.
No matter. You said we could have it.
i cannot imagine the lawsuits that will follow. just wait for the first time organ are taken against a grieving spouse’s will!
and the freedom of religion implications are vast.
and the overall creep factor is infinite.
Silence is a decision to donate? I am SO scared for our future. This may sound horrible, but I hope and pray my kids don’t have kids. Ever.
Well, he does have a point. After all, those NY organs are going to be highly desirable now that the nannies have saved them from … SALT!!
This is just sick. So basically the government should have a controlling interest in our bodies because it’s “for the greater good”? Is it much of a leap to some bureaucrat deciding that someone who is compatible with lots of other people would be better utilized being carved up for parts.
Wow – just wow
I have been saying that a lot lately
I am dumbfounded!!! Will the insanity ever stop. So now we can be forced to be a money source for the medical industry–Does this sound oddly like a Modest Proposal to anyone???? Surely this is a SATIRE as well–REALLY can’t be for REAL!
I agree with mga. I think people ought to be able to sell their organs.
As to this proposal I hope it is challenged because it violates so many basic rights.
So, they’re only my organs while I’m using them?
Now, I’m an organ donor, a blood donor, a bone marrow donor if they ever need me and all that stuff. I figure when I’m done with them, they can have em. I’m even toying with donating the whole body to science. (But I want to get a really obnoxious tattoo first)
HOWEVER, it’s a choice! It’s NOT EVER ok to make an assumption like that on someone’s behalf.
WOW! I wonder how the Jewish and Muslim communities will view this?
You know that they’ll charge you to remove yourself from being an organ donor. What about people whose religions are against organ donation? I’m Catholic, and an organ donor. However, many Catholics still believe that you must be buried with your body whole, to rise up again during the Rapture. Surely the liberals will cater to religious beliefs!!!
“Soylent Green is made out of people. PEEEEOPLE”
In my new distopian worldview, there will be harvesters killing and collecting the organs of transients.
And what about those who are unable to give their concent.
This is sick, y’all. I thought that it was at least agreed upon that silence DOES NOT imply consent.
It reminds me of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUlGp249P24 from the movie With Honors. It’s a good movie to watch if you haven’t already seen it!
Washington:
KEEP YOUR LAWS OFF OF MY BODY!
MY BODY MY CHOICE!
sick creeps.
“silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate”
This is also the argument for date rape.
That ain’t right.
Good point Rachel.
Brodsky is actually my Assemblyman. If you knew him you would like him, he is far from kooky, in fact he is highly respected around these parts and has consistently been re-elected with bi-partisan support in his district, BUT I agree the law is wacked out and excessive. Sentimentally, he gets a pass for proposing it only because he is walking around with one kidney, as 5 years ago he gave up his other one to save his young adult daughter. Clearly this has affected him into sponsoring a law that has waaay too much government intrusion for my taste…Thanks for the heads up…see, you get useful local news here too LOL!!!
As far as Brodsky giving up a kidney..Great..
back to the same ol’..if a Liberal quits smoking, everyone quits, if a liberal is giving up salt no one has salt, if a liberal gives up a kidney….
Unless the corpse made legal arrangements prior to his death, how the heck can a decedent object?? I’ve NEVER seen a corpse anything but SILENT! If this passes, how long before politicians and celebrities can browse hospitals for organs?! With the right amount of sedatives, anyone can be silent. These people are insane. What is happening to this country under the ‘watch’ of this administration?!?!?!
More distopian New Amerikan visions: government “Donor Specialists” waiting like vultures for the old/infirmed to die and giving ‘government recommendations” on people’s health care.
The first thing I thought when I read this was… “And people are scarred of visiting Arizona”. At least we only want to see your papers when you commit a crime, in New York they take your organs when you die.
Yes I am an organ donor. I am also an egg donor. My blood isn’t healthy enough to donate (I have Epsteen’s Bar (sp?)). Hell I even donate a turkey at Thanksgiving b/c I hate the stuff, and I prefer honney baked ham. If I have it and I don’t need it, you can have it.
I would have liked to pass this on but wish you did not swear, THere is nothing holy about hell and that statement was not necessary the article spoke for itself,we begin to sound like the liberals when we can’t express our selves with more intelligent vocabulary.
If we’re going to presume people are organ donors unless they opt out, we should also give people a reason to NOT opt out. Donated organs should be allocated first to those who haven’t opted out. People who opt out of organ donation should go to the back of the transplant waiting list. The United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the national organ allocation system, has the power to make this simple policy change. No legislative action is required.
Americans who want to donate their organs to other registered organ donors don’t have to wait for UNOS to act. They can join LifeSharers, a non-profit network of organ donors who agree to offer their organs first to other organ donors when they die. Membership is free at http://www.LifeSharers.org or by calling 1-888-ORGAN88. There is no age limit, parents can enroll their minor children, and no one is excluded due to any pre-existing medical condition.
Giving organs first to organ donors will save more lives by convincing more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren’t willing to share the gift of life should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.
David J. Undis
Executive Director
LifeSharers
“Giving organs first to organ donors will save more lives by convincing more people to register as organ donors. It will also make the organ allocation system fairer. People who aren’t willing to share the gift of life should go to the back of the waiting list as long as there is a shortage of organs.”
That has got to be one of the dumbest things I have ever read replete with God syndrome. David you have serious morality and ethics issues.
Dear Laurel:
What’s dumb about giving organs first to registered organ donors? John Stossel thinks it’s a good idea. So did Milton Friedman. You can see what other people have to say at http://www.lifesharers.org/people.aspx.
David, what happened to “First do no harm?” It shouldn’t matter if the person is a donor or not. Some people have health issues that prevent them from being a donor. If you are so sick you need a transplant, how healthy can your other organs be? What about a child who needs a heart, but is not a donor? Gravity of the person’s illness should be the only factor in determining if they should be at the top of the transplant list. I worked on a kidney transplant unit. All recipients had to be educated in maintaining the transplant as far as medication, managing diabetes if they were diabetic, and signs of rejection. We did our best to make sure that the recipient understood the seriousness of not following the medication regimen, because it could put them into rejection. It was so neat to see these people a year later, because they always looked so healthy! Organ donation should not be forced. Would you really want to force a drug-addict or HIV positive person to be an organ donor? I’ve chosen to be an organ donor, because I would like to think that in the event of my death, I could prevent someone’s death. I also know that as much as I want to vomit thinking about it, if one of my children passed away, I would donate their organs absolutely. It would comfort me to know that a parent would be saved the agony of losing their child if my own could help their child live. I think anyone being admitted to a hospital for any reason, should be approached about organ donation. They could sign a consent form, so there is no question in the event of their death, and the family wouldn’t have to make a painful decision when their feelings are so raw.
ha-ha-ha-ha…Dave..welcome to COTR….and the Laurel SLAM LOL..you are now official!LOL..Sorry but that was hilarious…whew off to fly to DC.
Punky:
No one has health issues that prevent them from offering to donate their organs when they die. They’re now transplanting organs from people who had cancer, HIV, and hepatitis. The science keeps changing, so nobody can tell you today if your organs will be transplantable when you die. Everyone should offer to donate and let the surgeons figure it out when the time comes.
You said that the gravity of a person’s illness should be the only factor in determining if they should be at the top of the transplant list. That’s a nice thought, but that’s not how organs are allocated now. Lots of factors determine who gets offered an organ, including location, age, race, time spent waiting, and medical urgency. The actual allocation rules are available at http://www.unos.org. As long as non-medical criteria are going to be used, let’s use donor status as well. That will increase the supply of organs.
The primary goal of the organ transplantation system should be to save as many lives as possible. If organs are given first to registered donors then more people will donate and more lives will be saved. That’s the bottom line. Or do you think saving the most lives shouldn’t be the main goal?
David, did you miss the part where I said, “First do no harm?” Of COURSE saving lives is the goal. I’m merely stating that your personal beliefs may not be the next person’s beliefs, and that person should have the right to choose to agree or not. I’m well aware of the criteria for transplantation. The argument here is whether or not the government should have the right to force you to be an organ donor. Yes it would create a larger pool of organs, but a person being forced to become a donor infringes on their civil rights.
Punky:
I don’t believe government should have the right to force anyone to be an organ donor. I’m sorry if I gave you that impression.
What I do believe is that those who do choose to donate should be the first to receive organs if they need them. If you agree, please join LifeSharers.
Dave: But didn’t you also say that those who don’t choose do donate should ‘go to the back of the transplant list”?
Tazzy:
Yes, those who don’t choose to donate should go to the back of the transplant waiting list. Why? Most importantly, this would create an incentive for non-donors to donate. That would save more lives. Secondly, it’s fairer.
Dave: Because it’s sick. “This would create an incentive for non-donors to donate”. That is truely one of the most insensitive, heartless things I’ve ever heard in my life. Need, especially the need for lifegiving care, should be determined on need, not on if you donated your bodily organs or not. And donation should be a proactive gift, not the act of someone not taking action.