Now here's some A1 Horseshit...

[г]

Bill would require organ donations

Apr 15, 2007 12:28 PM
Chinta Puxley
Canadian Press

An Opposition bill that would deny a driver's licence or health card to anyone in Ontario who hasn't filled out a donor card is putting the thorny issue of organ donation under the microscope this week at the provincial legislature.

While advocates and health professionals await the release of a report commissioned by the province on how to boost organ donation, they're getting a chance to sound off on a backbencher's solution to the desperate need for organs in Ontario.

:ohwow:Conservative:ohwow: Frank Klees' bill – which will be discussed at a legislative committee Thursday – would require everyone renewing or applying for a driver's licence or health card in Ontario to declare their willingness to donate their organs, decline to donate them or say they haven't made up their mind yet.

If someone doesn't complete the organ donor questionnaire, Klees said the application would be rejected as incomplete.

"We're simply asking people to complete the full application," Klees said, adding anyone can say they are undecided. "It should be a no-brainer for people to simply say this is part of the application. This is not a major issue for someone unless they want to make it that."

The bill is unlikely to become law unless it is adopted by the government, but Klees said if it does pass through the legislature, it will increase organ donation.

The majority of people surveyed in opinion polls say they are willing to be organ donors, he said.

The key is making it easier for them to give that gift and get others thinking about the issue, Klees added.

"It may take two or three times before they actually focus in on this," Klees said. "But the very fact (is) they're confronted with it, it's in front of them and we're creating awareness and providing information."

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/203318

[Green Lantern]

I guess your ass belongs to the state.

[35Pete]

Can't trust government. Just can't entrust them more then the absolute rock bottom bare minimum amount of power needed to defend the nation, negotiate treaties, coin money, and provide for common infrastructure.

[K-Gun]

I think your name should be put on the list when you turn 18, and then you have to fill out the form to get off it.

If you don't want to, you don't have to. Just mail in the form and you're good to go.

[35Pete]

I think your name should be put on the list when you turn 18, and then you have to fill out the form to get off it.

If you don't want to, you don't have to. Just mail in the form and you're good to go.

Opt out?

Let me ask you a more fundemental question. What right does any government have to opt you "in"?

[K-Gun]

Opt out?

Let me ask you a more fundemental question. What right does any government have to opt you "in"?

who cares, you have every right not to donate. No one is taking that away. I'll bet 60% of the population decides not to opt out who never opted in. Laziness, that all this strikes at.

[uppy]

My x-wife is a ER nurse and she made me remove my donor card from my

license...she said "they don't go the extra mile for donors" if you know

what I mean ;)

[35Pete]

who cares, you have every right not to donate. No one is taking that away. I'll bet 60% of the population decides not to opt out who never opted in. Laziness, that all this strikes at.

It's more fundamental than an issue of convenience.

[г]

Negative option billing
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Negative option billing is a business practice in which goods or services are provided automatically, and the customer must either pay for the service or specifically decline it in advance of billing.

This is, for example, the model on which mail order book clubs are structured.

In Canada, Parliament outlawed the practice in 1996 after a public outcry the previous year when most cable television companies added a package of new specialty services to their lineups in this manner. This had previously been the standard manner of adding new channels to cable television service, but had not previously attracted the type of controversy that was raised by the 1995 channel launch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_option_billing

[K-Gun]

It's more fundamental than an issue of convenience.

How would you're freedom be infringed?

[35Pete]

How would you're freedom be infringed?

Not speaking for Canada but the US.

1. There is nothing in the constitution, nothing, I mean nothing, that gives the gov't any power even remotely related. I haven't studied Canadian law even remotely enough to comment. Perhaps Spiked could comment.

2. How about we pass a law stating that the gov't can eavesdrop on your phone calls and screen your mail. That is, unless you opt out. How is freedom threatened?

3. This is not a left-right issue. This is a fundamental stretch of the role of government.

4. Do you want this precedent set?

5. How about SOME limitations on government. Or any for that matter?

[JLB]

Now here's some A1 Horseshit...http://www.thetechlounge.com/forum/images/smilies/more_smilies/horseshit.gifLet's go lucky our work is done here.

[JoeMama]

When I registered to get my license, I had to include my political orientation in order to complete the form. Which I found unnecessary, so I answered "no affiliation" just because I didn't like the question.

I think there was a question regarding organ donation (I could be wrong), but it wasn't a requirement.

[35Pete]

When I registered to get my license, I had to include my political orientation in order to complete the form. Which I found unnecessary, so I answered "no affiliation" just because I didn't like the question.

I think there was a question regarding organ donation (I could be wrong), but it wasn't a requirement.

Same here. WTF does your politics have to do with getting a license?

I keep telling you guys. Government is abusive as hell. Now the leviathon is out of control.

[г]

Well the good news is this is just a bill, from an opposition Member of Provincial Parliament. The chances of successful passage into law are pretty much nil...private members bills rarely pass.

I'd be interested to see whether or not the Provincial Government actually has jurisdiction over your body in the absence of consent. I know there's a whole branch of the Ontario Government called the Public Guardian & Trustee that makes decisions on property in case you die and don't have a will, I just don't know what the law is with regards to how they treat your body and it's parts.

If this bill somehow passes, expect some landmark legal challenges, i.e. this will become the guaranteed lawyer employment bill for the next 5-10 years LOL

[35Pete]

Well the good news is this is just a bill, from an opposition Member of Provincial Parliament. The chances of successful passage into law are pretty much nil...private members bills rarely pass.

I'd be interested to see whether or not the Provincial Government actually has jurisdiction over your body. I know there's a whole branch of the Ontario Government called the Public Guardian & Trustee that makes decisions on property in case you die and don't have a will, I just don't know what the law is with regards to how they treat your body and it's parts.

If this bill somehow passes, expect some landmark legal challenges, i.e. this will become the guaranteed lawyer employment bill for the next 5-10 years LOL

Give us 18 months. Someone will enter a bill into congress regarding this. I'm surprised that it's taken this long for the gov't to claim jurisdiction and rightful ownership over our corpses.

They'll probably cite some "compelling interest" lawyer shit as justification for it.

[г]

Under United States law, the regulation of organ donation is left to states within the limitations of the federal National Organ Transplant Act of 1968. Each state's Uniform Anatomical Gift Act seeks to streamline the process and standardize the rules among the various states, but it still requires that the donor make an affirmative statement during her or his lifetime that she or he is willing to be an organ donor. Many states have sought to encourage the donations to be made by allowing the consent to be noted on the driver's license. Still, it remains a pure consent system rather than an extended consent system or even a dissent opt-out system. Curiously, though, relatives can still dissent even in the presence of evidence of explicit consent by the potential organ donor (driver's liscence, living will, registry information, etc.). As such, many organ donation campaigns in the United States encourage family communication about one's decision to donate or not to donate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation

[Green Lantern]

My x-wife is a ER nurse and she made me remove my donor card from my

license...she said "they don't go the extra mile for donors" if you know

what I mean ;)

That has got to be one of the worst things I have ever heard.

[35Pete]

That has got to be one of the worst things I have ever heard.

I worked the ER and never had that experience.

And I was always the guy doing CPR.

Actually the extra mile depends on your health history and your age.

We didn't go the extra mile for an 85 year old cancer patient.

But I remember distinctly a 14 yr old girl that coded. We worked on her for 2 hours, culminating in splitting open her chest cavity and doing direct cardiac massage.

We brought her back.

She died the next day in the Surgical ICU.

[nehemiah]

aaaaaaaaaaaa. who give a ****?

you're gonna be dead anyways.

stop being so attached to corporeal existence.

[uppy]

That has got to be one of the worst things I have ever heard.


She made me remove it.

[Green Lantern]

aaaaaaaaaaaa. who give a ****?

you're gonna be dead anyways.

stop being so attached to corporeal existence.

What bothers me is the attachment to corporeal existence of others who would go to such lengths as to take body parts from corpses in order to stay here.

You get one body, try and take care of it.There should be no do-overs.

[г]

(So I assume the Health Minister will let the bill die on the order paper, i.e it won't go to third reading and become law ?)

Presumed consent for organ donations rejected

But group urges other ways to help increase donations
Apr 20, 2007 04:30 AM
Queen's Park Bureau

Doctors don't want to be seen as "organ-seizing ghouls," an expert panel looking at ways to boost organ donations says in rejecting a push for a "presumed consent" law.

Ordinary Ontarians aren't crazy about the idea either and would rather see guarantees for the jobs of people who come forward to be living donors of kidneys and liver lobes while they recover from surgery, says a report from the Citizens Panel on Increasing Organ Donations, appointed last year by Health Minister George Smitherman.

Under a presumed consent law, organs and tissues would be harvested from the deceased unless they have expressly forbidden it.

Smitherman said yesterday the best way to increase the number of organs donated is to focus on living donors because most people on waiting lists need kidneys and livers. He promised an action plan soon. "I think the report gives us a particularly strong boost on that point, to do a more effective job at supporting those who are willing to make such a big commitment to another human being through the gift of an organ."

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/205352