We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Organ Donation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Theological Technocratic Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: June 2089
Description[?]:
| Purpose: To protect the individual's right to the unity of their body, while giving the government and medical facilities an adequate supply of necessary organs. When applying for a driver's license or equivalent form of government identification, each individual will be provided with a box clearly marking that they do not wish to be an organ donor; otherwise, consent is implied. This allows those with a vested interest in not donating to do so, and allows the indifferent to make a useful contribution to society. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 07:46:30, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Theological Technocratic Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation |
| Message | Ack; I meant to add a proposal to this bill but accidentally sent it on to voting. Feel free to vote against it and I'll put another bill up to debate. |
| Date | 09:14:42, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Marxist Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation |
| Message | No. personally, I believe that organ donation should be compulsory. Why should one person's superstitious beliefs kill little Timmy, who needs a new kidney? But seriously, the deceased has no need for them and they will be ruined in embalming. No one should be allowed to deny another person life. Now, I'm going to get Darwinist bashed and anarchist bashed. Not to mention theologically bashed. |
| Date | 10:00:22, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Theological Technocratic Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation |
| Message | You may or may not be correct, but it must be admitted that this bill is at least a step in that direction. |
| Date | 17:40:07, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party of Telamon | To | Debating the Organ Donation |
| Message | No, what if somebody wanted to be off the donor list, and then got killed along the way? Why should he give them up. I believe, family should have the right to interfere, if they feel he wouldn't wanted to have given them up in the first place. |
| Date | 20:17:59, August 01, 2005 CET | From | Theological Technocratic Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation |
| Message | He wouldn't be on the donor list in the first place if he explicitly didn't want to be. Children would not be included in this proposal. Unless you're talking about someone who would be driving to the place where they would change their organ-donation status and were killed in a car accident along the way. Although this is conceivable, the odds of it happening are really low. Why would you want family to have overriding precedence? The individual would have plenty of chances to remove himself from the donor list in the first place. This bill is for the great sum of people who don't care either way what happens to their organs after they die. In these cases, under the old bill, they would go to waste for no good reason. Here they would go to good use. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 238 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 17 |
| Random fact: Particracy isn't just a game, it also has a forum, where players meet up to discuss role-playing, talk about in-game stuff, run their own newspaper or organisation and even discuss non-game and real-life issues! Check it out: http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time." - Alfred E. Wiggam |