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 Donars Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Economic Development 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: September 2170
Description[?]:
| it doesn't hurt someone to have their organs donated if they are dead, it helps people who are still alive, and if they care very much about it then this law provides for them to say no. |
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 | 15:58:44, January 01, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | If people don't have property when they are dead, can someone else be buried in their grave? It's not anyone's property. |
| Date | 20:37:29, January 01, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | I agree that it doesn't hurt anyone to just take organs. However, many people have different beliefs, both moral and religious, which may be undermined by the proposed law. I will therefore oppose this bill. |
| Date | 01:43:05, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Economic Development Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | LP: ummm....... what does that have to do with the debate? SSP: true, some people might disigree with having their organs donated, but they can state that they don't want to do that. also, not only does donating organs not harm the donar, but it helps the living too. |
| Date | 02:47:54, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | From a utilitarian point of view, the bill makes sense. However, the general law of property is that property does not change hands without positive stated consent. This bill brings into play the doctrine of presumed consent, and is therefore contrary to the general rule of property law. I personally don't think that the state ought to be presuming anything. If I want my organs donated, I'll say so. If not, I should not have to go out of my way to tell some doctor to keep his hands off of MY organs. I am a believer in organ donation. I have signed a card in my home jurisdiction allowing doctors to take whatever they want once I'm dead. However, presuming such an intent, especially in the age of face transplants (the first one was performed last month in France), seems to me to be a little too much for my liking. I'm sure many people would not like having their face taken off of their dead body and transplanted. The state should not be presuming consent for such an operation. |
| Date | 05:22:05, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Green Moderate Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | This clearly violates individual rights. If there were an option where the family could be asked and could give consent in the event of a need for the deceased's organs, I would vote for that. But consent cannot just be assumed. |
| Date | 14:54:17, January 02, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Liberty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | "LP: ummm....... what does that have to do with the debate?" Because your entire arguement is based around the fact that dead people have no property. If they have no property, then you are opening up whole Pandora's box of issues. |
| Date | 04:25:45, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Economic Development Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | SSP: is your face an organ? GMP: does a person need rights when he is dead? what does he care if he helps another person live or not when he is dead? SLP: why does that cause problems? i don't think dead people have property. what would they ever need or want it for? |
| Date | 07:03:53, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | Yes. The skin is the largest organ in the human body. |
| Date | 05:45:49, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Economic Development Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | is your face made of skin? yes, part of it, but not the whole thing. and would you give up your face when you were dead if you could also save some lives with your other organs? |
| Date | 06:06:26, January 09, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | As I've stated before, I've signed an organ donar card to allow doctors to take whatever they want from me. The point is I CONSENTED TO IT AND INFORMED THE PROPER PEOPLE OF THAT DECISION. But lets take your argument to an extreme. Say you die, and you own a house. A house, with its heat, shelter, fridge full of food, inherent value, etc, could save the life of a street person who is otherwise freezing and starving in the cold. Would you pass a law presuming that your house, upon your death, would be given to a homeless person whose life would be saved by ownership of your home? That the state would seize all the food you own and send it to a food bank? That your money in your accounts would be seized and given to research for a disease, so lives could be saved? You are always free to DECIDE to do those things with your property after yoru death in your Last Will and Testament. However, to presume such an intent seems rediculous. I do not see why presumption of such an intent with your own body parts makes any more sense. |
| Date | 05:52:22, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Economic Development Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | well, if it was either have thathappen, or just let all of it rot, then YES! i would rather have my house given to a homeless guy and have the government take my food. sure, all your money house ect. you want to go to your kids realatives ect. but what would they do with your body? nothing! so if you don't care ( which you are implying if you didn't say anything about it during life) then they should be taken to help others. also, you CAN and SHOULD diside what to do with your orgeons in your will, but if you havn't said anything about it, then i think that that implies that you don't care and so they should be donated to help the living. i am not taking away your rights. you can still make it know you don't want to donate, i am just perposing that if people don't care about the matter then we should be able to help the living with their orgeons (which they don't care about if they didn't say anything to the matter. anyway... this bill is going to the vote. |
| Date | 06:19:00, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Selucian Sovereignty Party | To | Debating the Organ Donars Bill |
| Message | Your "reverse onus" argument is fundamentally flawed. Taken to its logical extreme, I could steal every one of your possessions, because you never expressly stated that you did not wish me to do so. That's an utterly ridiculous notion. THe law recognizes property rights. I choose to respect them. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 138 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 437 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "The true destiny of America is religious, not political: it is spiritual, not physical." - Alvin R. Dyer |