Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: April 5461
Next month in: 00:22:42
Server time: 07:37:17, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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: A New Look at Organ Donorship

Details

Submitted by[?]: Lodamun Distributionist Party

Status[?]: defeated

Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.

Voting deadline: July 2415

Description[?]:

The LDP believes that by assuming "donor" status, many more patients in need of new organs will be given the chance to receive the needed organ. The current system relies not only on the generosity of others, but more importantly it relies on the fact that healthy people will bother to register. Under this proposal, "donor" status is assumed, unless personal preference or religious or moral conviction prevents a citizen from donating.

Simply: It makes more sense to assume the most helpful thing, not to assume that which helps no one.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date11:14:14, June 16, 2007 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessagePeople have unalienable rights and among these is the right to keep their organs if they desire, and no that doesn't mean that the government can sweep in and harvest them because a form wasn't filled out. If people are too lazy to fill out organ donor cards that's one thing, but there will be just as many lazy people who don't file for an exemption and will have their organs ripped out as a result. The only way to determine what people really wanted to do with their bodies after death is to continue with the current system.

Date15:03:13, June 16, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Liberal-Conservative Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageUnfortunately we cannot agree to this proposal. Consent over an individual's most private property cannot simply be assumed, no matter what the circumstance. The government has no right to so much as lay a finger on the individual unless he has specifically given them permission.

Date18:36:00, June 16, 2007 CET
FromThe Unified Lodamun Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageWhile the Unified Lodamun's generally are completley against bills that effect freedoms, we do not believe this hurts anyone, but only helps. It is our belief that the vast majority of people in our good world would prefer to help another's fight for life than not. There will most certainly be people that have religious beliefs against such an action, and those people are more than welcome to fill our a card and prohibit the use of their organs, but the vast majority of people do not have any stance on the issue one way or another. We heartily support htis bill. Just imagine a world where donar lists are days long instead of months and years.

Date18:40:45, June 16, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Distributionist Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageThat is also our wish...thank you for your support, ULP.

Date20:14:14, June 16, 2007 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessagePeople's inalienable rights should not be violated just because "it doesn't hurt anyone."

Date03:44:35, June 17, 2007 CET
FromIndependent Republican Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageWe agree with the LDP on this issue. If the person is dead and if they do not mention anything regarding organ donorship, then why not donate their organs to someone in need?

Date04:58:09, June 17, 2007 CET
FromNew Democratic Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageNo one's rights are being violated. If someone chooses not to become an organ donor, the option should be easily available to him or her.

Excellent bill. You have our full support (all zero of us.)

Date06:24:41, June 17, 2007 CET
FromFree Lodamun
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageWe think perhaps the person in question's surviving family should get the final say. It should be assumed unless the person's benificiaries object.

Date09:21:53, June 17, 2007 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
Messageooc: I am an organ donor, but the idea of people cutting my organs out if i never filed out a paper is disturbing. My brother never registered to vote for years because he was too lazy to fill out a piece of paper. People should donate because they want to - not because they're lazy slobs and never filled something out.

Date09:30:34, June 17, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Distributionist Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageOOC: Most of Europe has rules to this effect and it seems to work very well...far better than it does here in the States.

By the way, NOT voting is not the same as having a religious conviction. If you have a reason to not give your organs after death, you won't be "too lazy" to fill out a sheet. Many religious sects, for example, will likely furnish their groups with the paperwork and help the individuals file the papers for that very reason.

This isn't a meat market.

Date10:58:45, June 17, 2007 CET
FromUnited Republics Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageIt's not a meat market yet. I intend to keep it that way

Date12:25:29, June 17, 2007 CET
FromRadical Nationalist Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageThe NP feels that it is only respectful that a persons organs are left if they specified no desire to donate them. This could also clash with religious beliefs and personal beliefs and therefor we believe that this issue is too contraversial and we will be forced to vote against it.

Date12:39:13, June 17, 2007 CET
FromLodamun Distributionist Party
ToDebating the A New Look at Organ Donorship
MessageLet us point out for a third time that there is no problem and no shame in signing a paper saying you would rather opt out of the system for any reason, including religious conviction and personal beliefs. It would still work the same way the old system works. At birth and at the time you get your driver's license you would get a paper explaining the program and you sign it if you DON'T want to be a part. It's not like you have to go out of your way. You'll be there anyway. We can't understand the NP's point here. Everyone would be aware of the law and everyone would be aware of their right to not be a part of the system. All it would take is a single signature on file saying that you didn't want to be a part of the system. The only difference between this and the current system is that in this proposal the default position would be "helping people," as opposed to "not helping people." After all, what are these we doing with our kidneys after we die anyway? They're not doing US any good. This is hardly controversial.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
    

Total Seats: 168

no
    

Total Seats: 431

abstain

    Total Seats: 0


    Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction.

    Random quote: "Seventy-seven percent of anti-abortion leaders are men. 100% of them will never be pregnant." - Planned Parenthood advertisement

    This page was generated with PHP
    Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
    Queries performed: 89