Argentina just signed into law the Justine bill (organ donation).
This law regulates the issue from the"'other side" and I have trouble with this approach.
See, as soon as this law stars to be applied EVERY ARGENTINEAN 18 Y/O AND OLDER AUTOMATICALLY WILL BECOME AN ORGAN DONOR....No to become an "instant donor" the person must sign certain papers stating he / she doesn't want to be a donor.
I believe this law...signed in honor of Justina Lo Cano who died waiting for a heart...is the first one on the world that approaches the issue from the other end.
5
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I’m inclined to like this law! Could be abused but , really the few times it would be abused (IDK :mafiosi takes out several rare blood type victims to get heart for his kid, maybe) Would be vastly outnumbered by the thousands of people whose lives would be saved or improved by this law!
Edgeward
Level 6
July 6, 2018
0
Really? Would you feel the same if is your child the one who loses his/her life because "a mafiosi deal"? I bet you won't.
I’m inclined to like this law! Could be abused but , really the few times it would be abused (IDK :mafiosi takes out several rare blood type victims to get heart for his kid, maybe) Would be vastly outnumbered by the thousands of people whose lives would be saved or improved by this law!
Edgeward
Level 6
July 6, 2018
0
We are working on this in Ireland too...its called the Donor opt out scheme.
Great idea..about time too.
Hitchens
Level 8
July 5, 2018
2
You know I disagree...
Even the Argentinean Transplant Assoc. is against this law...from.its president, Dr. Lucas McCormack to the last employee.
@Hitchens A rich guy's daughter needs a heart....a young person gets badly hurt in a car accident and has 50/50 chances of recovering....but, in a matter of minutes he becomes brain dead and -oh surprise- the rich guy's daughter is being prepared for her badly needed transplant....BECAUSE THE CAR ACCIDENTS VICTIM HAPPENS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RICH GUY'S DAUGHTER.
COINCIDENCE? ONCE...EVEN TWICE? I ACCEPT...BUT WHEN THE % OF BRAIN DEAD CASES RISESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS............HIMMMMMM
The Dutch are working on this as well: [cnn.com]
I think it's a great step in the right direction. People tend to assume the worst when something like this happens while in reality those arguments are simply illogical fear.
mattersauce
Level 7
July 5, 2018
1
Think of my argument as "illogical"...while I think about the mafia behind organs donation. No, i don't trust the government.
@DUCHESSA You seem to think that a government run program that you can opt out of at will is going to steal your organs for rich people. This sounds like a great movie but it's not real life. You have no evidence to back up your claims as these programs have not existed while we have stastics out the ass saying that people die on organ wait lists all the time. I definitely can't get behind letting people die because I'm afraid of a conspiracy. Your argument isn't logical because you have no basis for it other than "mistrust for the government". I get that you're afraid, but that doesn't make it a logical argument.
@mattersauce First...I am not an idiot...so don't dismiss my concern about a government and/or mentality you don't know anything about.
See, if the government changes...and we get a populist one such as Venezuela's ...or Mexico soon to be....anything could happen.
Sure, people die by the second waiting for organs (Justina Lo Cano's case) but it doesn't mean this type of law is the solution.
The way I see it organ trafficking has taking a new turn.
You should watch the movie "Coma"(1970s) to get a bit of flavor on this issu
e.
@DUCHESSA I didn't say you're an idiot, I said your argument is based on fear and not logic. If you disagree produce some stastics that prove your point. Until you do I am absolutely dismissing your concerns because the overriding factor is once again, I care more about people dying on wait lists than your unfounded fears. "Anything could happen" is not a basis for a logical argument.
I also noted that "this sounds like a great movie but it's not real life" and you countered with "watch the movie Coma" which is a suspenseful work of fiction. That is basically saying you're afraid of asteroids because you watched Armageddon.
You're afraid, and somewhere along the line you've decided that fear alone is enough to make a decision on a policy that affects far more people in a positive manner than you'd like to recognize. Fear is not real, danger however is stastically trackable. Show me danger and I'll recognize your point, spout only fear and I'll dismiss it on a loop.
@mattersauce No, dear, is not based on fear but in knowing very well / not trusting the people.
I laugh at people who say "show some statistics". LOL Like certain governments will keep tabs. ...pleeeeeeeeeeease
Let me put it this way to you: I won'[ t visit Argentina during a Peronist administration.
@DUCHESSA So you're laughing at someone who wants you to provide proof instead of just taking your word? Do you know what site you're on? Your ego is remarkable.
If opting out is easy, I'm OK with this. You're dead, ffs. It would be easy to screw this up, though. Not sure how far I'd trust Argentinian government enforcement. But the concept sounds all right to me .
zeuser
Level 9
July 5, 2018
0
It won't be the government but the organ donors's maffia.
There are quite a lot of countries in Europe who have adopted this system so it’s certainly not the first. Here in the UK we have devolved government and Wales already has it, and England and Scotland will be bringing it in soon. The reason is because the number of donors was very low and even those who had signed up and carried cards could be overruled by their relatives after they were deceased. Anyone who strongly objects to this presumed consent situation can opt-out and they will be put on a register. I think it is a better system, we no longer need our organs after death so why should anyone object to donating them to save others from dying.
Marionville
Level 10
July 5, 2018
2
Thanks for the info. No, I don't think is a better system because it lends itself to criminal behavior.
@DUCHESSA Can you explain ?
@Marionville Isn't obvious?
A rich guy needs a hearth and a poor person -who had a car accident is "ambulnced" to the hospital in critical stage....Oh, surprise, the poor dude dies and he is compatible with the rich guy....and this type of "incidents" becomes quite common.
See, a transplants lives the hospital a lot more money than the amount any insurance would pay to bring back to health the victim of a car accident.
@DUCHESSA Yes,perhaps that could happen in US, but we have the NHS here in the U.K. and it doen’t matter how much money or influence you had you couldn’t buy your way to the top of the list,......thank goodness. The NHS is 70 today! Happy Birthday to it and thank goodness we don’ t have a private system here.
@Marionville I hope you are right.........
@DUCHESSA Or maybe it will make all of those awaiting donor organs much less desperate. Much time is lost as families agonize over the question, "Is this what they would have wanted?" and many end up deciding no because they're uncomfortable making that choice. More organs will be available and line-jumping is less likely to occur.
I kinda like the law. I am personally an organ donor. So perhaps my judgment is skewed, however I believe that upon my passing, that is to say that I no er need use of my organs. Then what should any of my remains, if, big if here, I don't treat my body well, is usable for another that they should be able to. Like second hand stores. If I donate something to a store that I hope someone can find a little us our of. Instead of just throwing it away. Or even selling it for my own personal gain. Then the body isn't much different. Just junk you leave when you pass.
KelseyScott
Level 3
July 5, 2018
2
I am all for organ donation...but don't impose it on me.
And as such would be in violation of the very premise of law itself, the sanctity of your human form.
All laws regard your body as your own property, which can be stolen from, killed and so forth, violating those laws. If they take the right of Body integrity from you after death, then what is to stop them from say deciding your home is not yours because your dead? Or anything else.
"Bodily integrity is the inviolability of the physical body and emphasizes the importance of personal autonomy and the self-determination of human beings over their own bodies. In the field of human rights, violation of the bodily integrity of another is regarded as an unethical infringement, intrusive, and possibly criminal"
Bodily integrity is why I support a womens right to choose. I am not a woman, do not have a vagina or womb so abortion is not my issue. Arguing against that is to argue against Bodily integrity itself.
"The United States Constitution does not contain any specific provisions regarding the rights one has with respect to his or her physical body or the specific extent to which the state can act upon bodies.[12] However, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld right to privacy, which, as articulated by Julie Lane, often protects rights to bodily integrity. In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) the Court supported women's rights to obtain birth control (and thus, retain reproductive autonomy) without marital consent. Similarly, a woman's right to privacy in obtaining abortions was protected by Roe v. Wade (1973). In McFall v. Shimp (1978), a Pennsylvania court ruled that a person cannot be forced to donate bone marrow, even if such a donation would save another person's life.
Conversely, the Supreme Court has also protected the right of governmental entities to infringe upon bodily integrity. Examples include laws prohibiting the use of drugs, laws prohibiting euthanasia, laws requiring the use of seatbelts and helmets, strip searches of prisoners, and forced blood tests."
While the idea is compassionate it does not espouse Liberty.
Davesnothere
Level 7
July 5, 2018
1
your speech doesn't fly with me...I am all for organs donation but on my terms.
@DUCHESSA That is kind of the point of what I said.
IF you support (as I do)organ donation, you donate.
If you do not and the gov enforces it, yes lives will certainly be saved, but at the cost of the Liberty of your Body. If your religious belief, culture or what have you has restrictions on the body after death, the Gov does not care under such a law.
@DUCHESSA @Davesnothere is agreeing with you in a flowery way. =]
@IAMGROOT Hey! Groots ALL about the flowers
Sound like a dangerous first step.
bigpawbullets
Level 9
July 5, 2018
0
Indeed.
It's like that here in the Netherlands as well. The most disturbing thing is that this altered the qualification about when death occurs, for some organs to be effectively harvested they have to come out before decay starts which is quite early in the dying process.
Denker
Level 7
July 5, 2018
2
Who is there to tell me that certain organs were not harvested while the person was still alive? The movie "Coma" (1970s) should be played again.
This rubs me the wrong way, just because it takes it out of a person's hands and puts the power in the state's. That government is best which governs least, and when it comes to your body, dead or alive, not at all. If you want, give the family the power to make the decision after death.
Paul4747
Level 8
July 5, 2018
2
The law about the family giving consent is already in the books; it was sanctioned decades ago...Now, I imagine it will be derogated
That's already the default and it's not working. This just switches to a default of "everyone is a donor" and allows those who don't want to be to opt out.
Since there's an option for opting out, I don't see a problem. And it certainly saves precious time wasted trying to convince next of kin to agree to donation.
GinaMaria
Level 7
July 5, 2018
8
Well, I disagree.
@DUCHESSA
With what? What do you disagree with?
If you don’t harvest an organ quickly you lose it,
CPR in cases other than choking and sudden heart arrhythmia is not able to bring a human to anything alive,
@Sunsetmermaid I decide what to do with my body. Recently, two Argentinean female police officers were injured (same day) and both were pronounced dead "brain dead".veeeeeeeeeeeery fast; they were very young and free of diseases. How do I know they were really "brain dead"? I will never know but her organs were donated and their remains cremated. I doubt the medical community will be so speedy to declare " brain dead" a 50 y/o person.
The only confort is that nobody gets paid for the organs.
I heard about the opt out rather than opt in way before and think it is better. It would save lives and cut down on organ theft, as well as some of the other dishonest scammy organ buying practices that go in in some poorer places. You can always opt out if you are against it.
MsAl
Level 8
July 5, 2018
7
Dear...the "bad" business are a lot more common in rich countries than in the poorer ones....See, they go where the money is.
No, the opt-out part of the law doesn't convince me.
Another, the criminals will find a way to profit.
I rather like the opt-in chance.
MsAl:
@DUCHESSA Organ transplant tourism is a booming business. Rich people who can't get an organ in their own country go where they can find one. Sometimes they don't even realize they are getting illegal organs. Organ trafficking is illegal and is very often quite "bad" business. Donors often don't get full compensation or after care, or any. The people who do this are usually desperate and uneducated. They don't have much recourse after they realize they have been scammed. Even the ones who are paid in full are not paid as much as they should be. It really is not a good thing at all.
I realize that the opt-out way isn't perfect, but if it were in place maybe less of these people would be seeking out alternative methods because they could get an organ back home.
Is your concern that your organs might be harvested before you are done with them so that some other person with more wealth and power might use them? That would be my concern, that the system would be corrupted and the power abused.
Surfpirate
Level 9
July 5, 2018
3
Exactly my thought.
Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey needed a Heart and Liver. The next day the state police conveniently shot a "criminal" that was a perfect match. Bob Casey was on the donor waiting list for all of 10 hours before he got the replacement parts. That means none of the other potential donors was a match.
@Tominator Perhaps these were just extremely fortunate coincidences or proof that god loves politicians more and performed a miracle? NAH!! Bunch of sleezebags I wouldn't trust as far as I could shoot them out of a cannon, although that might be worth putting to the test.
Well, it has a lot to do with it....also with the democratic right to choose.
@DUCHESSA It does beg the question 'Are we free individuals or are we chattels of the state?'
@Surfpirate You tell me.
@DUCHESSA I think you made it clear what the government thinks with your original post. I will continue to live as a free individual who realizes I am under threat of being treated as a chattel.
@Surfpirate I will go to the Argentinean consulate in NYC and sign for the opt-out way.
@DUCHESSA It's not easy being free. 
You don't believe in god, or an afterlfe. What do you need your (soon to be decomposing) body parts for? Help someone live you selfish shit! Lol ?
SimonCyrene
Level 7
July 5, 2018
2
I guess you can't read.
I am all for organ donation....but let it be MY decision.
@DUCHESSA yeah i got someone to read it to me and then type out my answer for me cos i can't write either. I'm really good at sarcasm though ?
@SimonCyrene No, you are not good even at sarcasm.
This is coming in the UK too (I think the Welsh parliament already has it). The trouble is that doctors will still seek consent from the family. So if you are a registered donor (we do so on our driving licence), Please make sure your next of kin knows and is ready to give consent on your behalf.
273kelvin
Level 8
July 4, 2018
3
I am Argentinean but I don't live there.
BTW, Once this law becomes effectove the family consent one will not longer be.
I'm not sure how I feel about this right now. I'll have to read more and think about it. It's basically an opt-out process rather than the current opt-in system, as is in the U.S. Basically presumed consent.
But to clarify, this is not law yet. The Argentina senate has passed the bill and it has yet to be voted on by the lower house. The UK has been working a similar system for several years.
GinaKay
Level 7
July 4, 2018
0
Dear, the lower house voted it -unanimously- yesterday. So, it is law....Actually, the vote in both houses was unanimous; yes, is an opt-out process.
BTW, before getting the info. from the Argentinean news I received a WUp message from a friend of mine...the daughter of one of the legislators.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
World Music
1360 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.