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 Expansion
Details
Submitted by[?]: Front for State Prosperity
Status[?]: passed
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: June 2126
Description[?]:
| It would greatly aid health in our country if organ donations were more common. However, the sad fact is that many people are apathetic or do not understand the benefit. While we believe that compulsory donation would be a breach of civil rights, an opt-out policy would improve the nation's standard-of-living while still giving people who have specific reasons not to wish for their organs to be taken the ability to remove themselves from the program. Members who register as members of certain faiths will be automatically excluded unless they also choose to opt-in. Which religions this applies to will be decided by consultation with religious leaders from Likatonia's established churches. Lastly, people can specify in wills that their body upon death belongs to someone else. That person is then responsible for their final arrangements and may also opt them out of the organ donation program. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning organ donations.
Old value:: Organ donations are legal with personal consent.
Current: Unless otherwise stated, consent is assumed.
Proposed: Unless otherwise stated, consent is assumed.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:47:41, October 11, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | We are not comfortable with the implied consent aspect of this bill. While we agree with the importance of organ and tissue donation, the current system allows people to make the choice explicit. |
| Date | 18:36:15, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | I am a registered organ donor. I'm going to guess from your comment that organ donation is something you support. We would never support making it compulsory, but I think that it is more important that we save people who would otherwise die for need of an organ, than that we risk offending a recently dead person who never cared enough to opt out. |
| Date | 18:37:31, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | Bah, wording came out wrong there, let me try again. I think it is more important that we save people who would otherwise die for need of an organ and that it is fine to risk offending a recently dead person who never cared enough to opt out. Should we punish the hospitalized for the apathy of others? |
| Date | 20:52:04, October 11, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | I am a registered doner as well, as well as palsma, platelets, and bone marrow. However, I do have a problem with harvesting without the explict consent of the donor. There are those who have religions difficulties with the practice, and they should not be penalized just because they did not fill out some form, or worse, because the form was filled out but mis filed in some massive bureaucracy. |
| Date | 23:11:18, October 11, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | I'm also a registered donor and all the secondary things to the effect that I could sign up for. I give blood too. I'm not apathetic to this cause. How about we establish a secondary policy to deal with that. We do our best to eliminate massive, inefficient beaurocracies. The only reason not to fill out the form at all is apathy. It is not right that we deprive hospital patients of the right to life because someone else didn't care enough to help them when helping them would cost the person absolutely nothing and cause the helper no trouble at all. |
| Date | 14:44:53, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | As a committed Libertarian, I cannot agree with depriving someone of their property without their consent, no matter how noble the reason. This is what this bill would do. |
| Date | 16:24:12, October 12, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | There is no greater property than life. You would forbid abortion because of a stated belief in that. So if you are willing to take choice from people to protect life in that, why are you not willing to take choice from people to protect life in this? |
| Date | 16:33:30, October 12, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | In the case of an abortion, you are taking action to end a life. In this case, you are refraining from taking an action which may save a life. Where I could offer support would be for a bill requiring all citizens to make a choice in this matter, thereby removing any doubt as to the intent of each individual. |
| Date | 01:39:57, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | Such a bill would also gain our whole-hearted support. However, it doesn't seem feasible to offer. (Pester the mods and we'll implement it!) For one thing, how would you implement it? It would require a massive beaurocracy and cost. Meanwhile this would be cheap to implement, would require less paperwork than the current opt-in program, and would give a rather large return on investment in health and therefore in productivity. |
| Date | 05:13:08, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | The AAP must oppose, for two reasons. 1) The AAP believes that an individual 'owns' their own body. We have fought Eminent Domain in our streets, we will fight Eminent Domain in our bodies. 2) The problem with 'assumed consent' is doubled when there are religious connotations at work. While the AAP is a largely secular institution, we DO respect the RIGHT of the individual to worship. Some might consider it a great breach of their religious code to be 'harvested' from... and the AAP will not condone FORCING harvesting on such individuals. |
| Date | 23:27:57, October 13, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | 1) Do the dead still own their body? We are not taking from the living and never would. 2) We fight abuse of force with deep conviction, and we respect the right to worship even though we believe religion has no place in government. Hence why people are free to opt-out. If someone is truly religiously opposed to this, then they can register as such. Hmm, we have an idea. Anyone who registers on the census as being of certain religions will be automatically opted-out unless they specifically opt back in. Which religions opt out automatically will be decided by religious leaders who we can meet with to discuss the issue. Does that solve the objection raised by the AAP? |
| Date | 03:38:22, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | Response to the PCP: While the solution the PCP offers is far from perfect, it is both elegant, and workable. However - if the living do not own their own bodies once they die... who does? And why? |
| Date | 14:18:19, October 14, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | The RLP can support this compromise as well, but we also echo the AAP's question and offer a possible suggestion - does the body become part of the estate, and ownership pases to the heirs? |
| Date | 20:53:50, October 14, 2005 CET | From | People's Party | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | It's obviously the family that owns the body, since the govt had nothing to do with creating the person. However a person can also control his fate through a will. In that case he does truly own his body even after death: it becomes his property. Since people generally prefer to keep their property, as against giving it away to the government, it is unnatural and anti-libertarian to assume automatic consent. |
| Date | 23:22:36, October 14, 2005 CET | From | Front for State Prosperity | To | Debating the Organ Donation Expansion |
| Message | I guess If they will their body to anyone else's control, that person can decide instead. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 166 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 334 |
| Random fact: Submitting a bill without any proposals in it will not attract or detract voters. It will not raise your visibility or change your political position. |
| Random quote: "You don't have to buy from anyone. You don't have to work at any particular job. You don't have to participate in any given relationship. You can choose." - Harry Browne |