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: The Organ Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: United Blobs
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: August 2074
Description[?]:
| This bill aims to solve problems with lack of organs in the Hobrazian health system. Under the new law: People will have assumed to have given consent to have their organs donated People may opt out at any time and this data will be stored on their ID card and/or a seperate card to enable their donation statues to be easily found Organ donation would be opt in for children so as to protect their interests A organ screening program will also be introduced to prevent the transmission of diseases from the donor to the recipient. This bill will come into effect 1 year from the date of it passing. That period will be used to advertise the new system and people will be allowed to opt out at any time during it. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning organ donations.
Old value:: The government enforces no regulation whatsoever.
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 | 19:18:27, June 29, 2005 CET | From |  United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | To me this smacks of an underhand tactic to, what is in essence, steal people's organs. If people want to donate, they should say so themselves: the state should not under any circumstances assume this, or bend the rules to give unwanted consent. |
| Date | 20:18:13, June 29, 2005 CET | From | We Say So! Party | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | This seems fair enough, though I would add a clause that all organs be screened before usage to guarentee that we aren't transferring organs that could cause harm more to the patient (e.g. HIV etc). @USM - There is nothing stopping people from denying their consent. |
| Date | 21:22:14, June 29, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | I realise that, but the fact that many people will die before they can give their consent/some may be confused about how the system works. I don't think its fair at all. |
| Date | 21:42:39, June 29, 2005 CET | From | United Blobs | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | Would it be better if I add a clause stating that it will take effect 1 year from now with people being able to opt out at any time during the year? Combined with an advertising campaign that should give people the time and freedom to choose what will happen to their organ when they die. |
| Date | 21:57:38, June 29, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Movement | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | That is an effective compromise, and we will support it if a thorough and precise advertising and public awareness campaign is exercised. |
| Date | 14:38:45, June 30, 2005 CET | From |  Liberal-Progressive Union | To | Debating the The Organ Act |
| Message | I don't think the government should assume anything. I believe this bill gives to much power the government, I can't support it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 137 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 6 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 196 |
| Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
| Random quote: "Any law which violates the inalienable rights of man is essentially unjust and tyrannical; it is not a law at all." - Maximilien Robespierre |