Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: July 5461
Next month in: 03:11:49
Server time: 16:48:10, 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: Practical Solidarity Act

Details

Submitted by[?]: LibCom Party

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: February 2077

Description[?]:

In order to ensure that organs are available for donation wherever possible, it will be assumed that individuals consent to donate their organs after death unless they have stated otherwise. In all cases, the donor's immediate family (if any is present) should be consulted, and have the right to refuse donation unless the donor has specifically expressed a desire to donate.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date15:01:38, July 01, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
Messageno, we will support consent stated by the individual. The indivdual has a right to their body and customs. For many the idea of their body being chopped up after their death is unpleasant or against their religious beliefs.

Date15:21:22, July 01, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
Messagewe oppose for similar reasons.

we thought the libcom supported civil rights, why are they trying to pass this bill? is it just a test balloon for ideas or are they serious?

Date15:59:26, July 01, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageOf course this is serious.

The individual (and their immediate family) would still have the right to withdraw their consent. However, organ donation should be considered a matter of basic human solidarity, and as such, it should be assumed that people are willing to donate unless they object.

Date08:37:14, July 02, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageThe dead cannot assert rights, this is a basic legal fact. The medical records of dead patients, while absolutely priviledge while the patient is alive, can be subpeanaed for trial after death. Unless there is an explicit statement that the person does not want to be an organ donor, there is no individual right to trump the common good.

Date18:04:42, July 02, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageAs the LevP has stated in the past we should err on the side of protecting individual rights. Yes, the dead have their rights. A will is used to detail how the dead wish their property divided and is generally followed. Issues for how to handle the reuse of cemeteries bring up how to treat the often long dead. Even in the case of medical records they are not open for public perusal rather they must be subpoenaed.

The individual's right toward their own remains should trump the medical community's desire to scavenge it for parts.

Date21:10:42, July 02, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageYou could just remove consent.

Date00:24:49, July 03, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageA citizen could remove consent but, just as many do not write a will early in their life, few would consider their death while they are young. These citizens will therefore have their wishes ignored since they had yet to have them officially recognized.

Consider a child recently born who then tragically dies. The parents in all likelihood would not have yet taken the time to register their child as a non-donor as they where still basking in the joys of new parenthood. The harvesters could come in and snatch the body leaving the parents crushed without so much as a body to morn.

No, the default situation should be non donation though we would encourage all citizens to consider the benefit their organs can provide to another, and those who can register to give this precious gift.

Date01:06:40, July 03, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageThe PP makes very compelling arguments to which we fully agree with.

Date17:16:40, July 03, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageClearly the PP hasn't taken the time to read the bill, so here's a reminder:

"it will be assumed that individuals consent to donate their organs after death unless they or their immediate family have stated otherwise."

The parents don't have to have registered their child as a non-donor before its death - obviously they'd be consulted before organs are harvested.

Date17:29:30, July 03, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
Message"HAVE stated otherwise"
led us to believe that this must occur prior to death.
this and the wording of the law lead us to the scenario discribed.

The clarification does not aid in the first situation listed. Namely the young adult not concerned about death. Few people consider their death prior to middle age, at least not long enough to take action. These people should not be punished. Perhaps for children under 18 there must be parental consent for donation. At 18 we can mail a form for those who wish to opt out or in to the system.

Date20:29:20, July 03, 2005 CET
FromSocial Republican Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageChildren under 18 there must be parental consent for donation. At 18 we can mail a form for those who wish to opt out or in to the system.

Or whatever the adult age is.

Date23:38:34, July 03, 2005 CET
FromRadical Centrists
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageIt is disgusting that any nation would operate an opt-in system when the dying are crying out for the organs that would may them.

The opt-out system is the only truly ETHICAL option we have.

Date01:30:53, July 04, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageDescription clarified with regard to next-of-kin.

Those who feel strongly about their organs can always opt out. If they don't feel that strongly, then the needs of the living are far more important.

Date14:38:00, July 04, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
Messagewhat about acces to the option to opt-out. forms should be sent to everyone to allow them the opportunity to op-out, rather than passing the bill and making it practically impossible to find the forms necessary to op-out

Date15:42:59, July 04, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageOpt-out forms should certainly be easily available. Perhaps we could add it to voter registration or something like that?

Date18:38:19, July 04, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageWe are a little concerned that the LibCom party has gone a bit to far in their wording to find a compromise.
The current wording now suggests that even if the individual had made it clear that they desired donation, their family can overrule their wishes and prevent it.
Furthermore the:
- In all cases, the donor's immediate family (if any exists) should be consulted
can lead to costly searches for an enstranged family member to grant permission for an individual who they have not been in contact with.

A far easier way would be those under adulthood age: custodian parent may grant/refuse donation and must be consulted.
For adults it is assumed unless stated otherwise.
The options to opt out should be included in voter registration (if we have it), appear in school during an approprate class for 17-18 yr olds, such as health or civics. and driving license applications/renewals.
Basically if we make it vary easy to opt in or out, we could support the default being in.

Date18:51:38, July 04, 2005 CET
FromVast Right Wing Conspiracy Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageThis sounds more like an email spam policy. You must opt out to keep from having your organs harvested when you die? Absolutely ludicrous. Each individual has the basic right by default to keep the sanctity of their own body. If organ donor shortage is an issue, instead of using Gestapo tactics to get organs, why not promote a national organ donor registry. Maybe provide tax incentives while alive to those who register as an organ donor? Possibly invest more in scientific research to create artificial organs or grow organs on lab rats for crying out loud. But to force someone's family to deal with the organ nazis after their loved ones death is insane.

Date19:22:23, July 04, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageThe family's wishes are arguably more important than those of the deceased, so they should be able to veto donation. "If any exists" changed to "if any is present" to preclude searches.

EM: "Gestapo tactics"? We're not harvesting organs from the living or anything. If people feel strongly, they can easily opt out. If anything, the fascist option would be to withhold organs from those who need them.

Many people don't care either way. Their organs should be put to good use. If the default is non-donation, those organs go to waste for no good reason.

Date19:38:12, July 04, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageWe cannot support:
The family's wishes are arguably more important than those of the decease, so they should be able to veto donation.
The right to do with ones body trumps the family's plan for it.

Date00:09:16, July 05, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageThe rights of the dead trump those of the living? We've long suspected there was something of the night about the PP...

Date12:22:30, July 05, 2005 CET
From Free Reform Coalition (FRP)
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
Messageand the FRP as well, we cannot support this either.

Date20:58:17, July 05, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageAdded a proviso to the end.

Is this a satisfactory balancing act?

Date21:17:49, July 05, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageIt should go either way so that if the recently deceased opted out the family could not override and opt them in.

Date21:37:01, July 05, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageUpon rereading, I think that is what is meant. Correct me if I am wrong.

Date23:36:33, July 05, 2005 CET
FromLibCom Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageYes, the family would only have the right to refuse donation, i.e. to override the default opt-in. They couldn't override the deceased's stated preference either way.

Date01:17:38, July 07, 2005 CET
FromVast Right Wing Conspiracy Party
ToDebating the Practical Solidarity Act
MessageIsn't this essentially the same bill as the last one? Everyone will be forced to give up their organs at the demand of the government unless they remember to write a will and specifically exclude the harvesting of their organs? Opt-outs unfairly put the burden on people to remove themselves from a situation they did not choose to be in. If people want to donate organs, let them do it voluntarily. Its my body, its my right to choose.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
     

Total Seats: 58

no
  

Total Seats: 14

abstain
   

Total Seats: 28


Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position.

Random quote: "A son can bear with equanimity the loss of his father, but the loss of his inheritance may drive him to despair." - Niccolo Machiavelli

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 97