The Dark Side of Government-run HealthScare

[MadazzVeteran]

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Cass Sunstein
TEL AVIV – President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.

Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.

In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as "routine removal," posits that "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."

"Though it may sound grotesque, routine removal is not impossible to defend," wrote Sunstein. "In theory, it would save lives, and it would do so without intruding on anyone who has any prospect for life."

Imagine, going in for arthroscopic knee surgery and coming out with only one kidney or one eye. Now just a little bit further, the government has a standard DO NOT RESUSCITATE (DNR) policy for anyone 60 years and older, so that organ harvest can be done earlier. Or a DNR to save energy; hurray for Al Gore we save energy by pulling the plug quickly.

This is just one example of the careful, thoughtful people who are driving the HealthScare Bus. Wake up America before you are thrown under the bus - without kidneys, corneas, hearts and other "useful" organs to keep the working masses working.

Government run HealthScare - NO ****ING THANKS!

[Jim50]

That's what this is saying. We don't even own our own bodies. Where will the insanty end?

[Czhorat]

That's what this is saying. We don't even own our own bodies. Where will the insanty end?

Actually, he's saying that your next of kin doesn't own your dead body.

I've not given the idea of mandatory donation much thought, but I have no understanding at all as to why someone would not want to voluntarilly donate organs after death.

[rckirby]

Yet Sunstein actually had to go through confirmation !!! Unfreaking believable. Most of us knew all about him before hand, and the Senate should have known too.

Then again, they most likely agree with him.

[Lisa4Catholics]

Nightmares!!!!!!:surprised

[LJ14]

Yet Sunstein actually had to go through confirmation !!! Unfreaking believable. Most of us knew all about him before hand, and the Senate should have known too.

Then again, they most likely agree with him.

That's what's truly astonishing... that these wingnuts can actually be taken seriously by our Congress. :eek:

Every Senator who gave this guy the nod needs a new career. Every single one of them.

[MadazzVeteran]

Yet Sunstein actually had to go through confirmation !!! Unfreaking believable. Most of us knew all about him before hand, and the Senate should have known too.

Then again, they most likely agree with him.

Yes, they knew him as well. What will be interesting to watch is how far Congress tries to distance themselves right before the 2010 mid-terms. Those RINO and Blue Dog Senators will be talking out the other side of their mouths then.

[Lisa4Catholics]

Actually, he's saying that your next of kin doesn't own your dead body.

I've not given the idea of mandatory donation much thought, but I have no understanding at all as to why someone would not want to voluntarilly donate organs after death.People make $$$$ off of organs who is to say you wouldn't not be deemed unworthy to live if someone was willing to pay enough for a match?:think:

[Czhorat]

People make $$$$ off of organs who is to say you wouldn't not be deemed unworthy to live if someone was willing to pay enough for a match?:think:

I was talking about voluntary, uncompensated donation at death. I believe that sale of orgams should be illegal, but I see NO justification for not donating them upon death.

The case that making the default position to harvest organs from a dead body rather than discard them seems at least on the surface to have a far-reaching positive impact on those who need a donated organ to live.

[simssk]

Yes, they knew him as well. What will be interesting to watch is how far Congress tries to distance themselves right before the 2010 mid-terms. Those RINO and Blue Dog Senators will be talking out the other side of their mouths then.

They can try to distance themselves.

We will not let them.

We must hold each and every Senator and Representative responsible for their vote and their actions.

[Czhorat]

I find it curious that nobody can articulate what they think is wrong with this.

[Lisa4Catholics]

I find it curious that nobody can articulate what they think is wrong with this.A body parts market is what is wrong with this. The government owning your dead body:naughty: And whose to say they do not cause a premature death to the highest bidder.

[deportalllibs]

Is this thread title racist? (Deportalllibs holding his race card at the ready)

[Czhorat]

A body parts market is what is wrong with this. The government owning your dead body:naughty: And whose to say they do not cause a premature death to the highest bidder.

Yes, but nobody discussed a market or payment. I would assume that the idea is to add organs of the recently deceased to the national donor registry and give it based on medical need and type matching, as is typically done with organ donation in this country.

If money weren't involved, would you still have an issue with this? What if the only change is that the default is to donate but one would have the option to opt-out (instead of having to opt-in as you do now).

I've requested that any usable organs of mine be harvested after my death. I have trouble seeing the argument for doing anything differently. Do you have a reason you'd NOT want your organs donated once you've shuffled off this mortal coil?

[deportalllibs]

That's what this is saying. We don't even own our own bodies. Where will the insanty end?

First GM, now a government take over of our our bodies? Tell me I'm wrong to want to deport them all!

[mamapajamas]

Actually, he's saying that your next of kin doesn't own your dead body.

I've not given the idea of mandatory donation much thought, but I have no understanding at all as to why someone would not want to voluntarilly donate organs after death.


"After death" is the key phrase in your comment. People who are still using their organs shouldn't be raided.

[jimmyc123]

More lies from WND (why am I not surprised?).

Here is Sunstein's conclusion about routine removal -

"Such an approach violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies."

http://books.google.com/books?id=dSJQn8egXvUC&pg=PT46&dq=Such+an+approach+violates+a+generally+accepted+ principle,+which+is+that+within+broad+limits,+indi viduals+should+be+able+to+decide+what+is+to+be+don e+with+and+to+their+bodies.&ei=7dLUSovtHI3YkQSQ5aXpDQ#v=onepage&q=Such%20an%20approach%20violates%20a%20generally% 20accepted%20principle%2C%20which%20is%20that%20wi thin%20broad%20limits%2C%20individuals%20should%20 be%20able%20to%20decide%20what%20is%20to%20be%20do ne%20with%20and%20to%20their%20bodies.&f=false

Sunstein favors a mandated choice approach, where one would have to declare either yes or no that they want to their organs. He does not advocate in any way whatsoever removing organs against one's wishes.

[Czhorat]

"After death" is the key phrase in your comment. People who are still using their organs shouldn't be raided.

OK. So would you support changing the rules so your organs would be harvested after death absent any explicit instructions from you otherwise?

If not, why not?

[rckirby]

Yes, but nobody discussed a market or payment. I would assume that the idea is to add organs of the recently deceased to the national donor registry and give it based on medical need and type matching, as is typically done with organ donation in this country.

If money weren't involved, would you still have an issue with this? What if the only change is that the default is to donate but one would have the option to opt-out (instead of having to opt-in as you do now).

I've requested that any usable organs of mine be harvested after my death. I have trouble seeing the argument for doing anything differently. Do you have a reason you'd NOT want your organs donated once you've shuffled off this mortal coil?

Big difference.........

.....the g'ment snatching organs from the dead without authorization of some kind by the deceased is disgusting and immoral............just because the g'mint has libs convinced they own them, the rest of us are not quite so willing to be g'mint fodder.

[jimmyc123]

Big difference.........

.....the g'ment snatching organs from the dead without authorization of some kind by the deceased is disgusting and immoral............just because the g'mint has libs convinced they own them, the rest of us are not quite so willing to be g'mint fodder.

No one is claiming the government owns your organs.

[Czhorat]

Big difference.........

.....the g'ment snatching organs from the dead without authorization of some kind by the deceased is disgusting and immoral............just because the g'mint has libs convinced they own them, the rest of us are not quite so willing to be g'mint fodder.

OK. Same questions for you (or anyone else who cares to answer) then:

1) Would you accept the either the mandatory choice Jimmy said Sunstein really is advocating or the position that it defaults to "yes, we'll use your organs" unless someone opts out? Why or why not?

2) What is the logic behind NOT wanting everyone's organs, assuming that they are usable, to be transplanted?

[ChicoLibertarian]

What if the only change is that the default is to donate but one would have the option to opt-out (instead of having to opt-in as you do now).

This should be done now. I have a friend whose kidneys have been attacked by a hereditary disorder and she faces the prospect of an early death if a matching kidney can't be found. It's shameful that so many usable organs are simply incinerated when they could be saving lives.

[ChicoLibertarian]

More lies from WND (why am I not surprised?).

Here is Sunstein's conclusion about routine removal -

"Such an approach violates a generally accepted principle, which is that within broad limits, individuals should be able to decide what is to be done with and to their bodies."

http://books.google.com/books?id=dSJQn8egXvUC&pg=PT46&dq=Such+an+approach+violates+a+generally+accepted+ principle,+which+is+that+within+broad+limits,+indi viduals+should+be+able+to+decide+what+is+to+be+don e+with+and+to+their+bodies.&ei=7dLUSovtHI3YkQSQ5aXpDQ#v=onepage&q=Such%20an%20approach%20violates%20a%20generally% 20accepted%20principle%2C%20which%20is%20that%20wi thin%20broad%20limits%2C%20individuals%20should%20 be%20able%20to%20decide%20what%20is%20to%20be%20do ne%20with%20and%20to%20their%20bodies.&f=false

Sunstein favors a mandated choice approach, where one would have to declare either yes or no that they want to their organs. He does not advocate in any way whatsoever removing organs against one's wishes.

Why am I not surprised? It's clear that the conservative agenda can only stand on its own when it uses quotes out of context. What a pathetic house of cards they've built.

[Lisa4Catholics]

OK. So would you support changing the rules so your organs would be harvested after death absent any explicit instructions from you otherwise?

If not, why not?I was all for until I saw what was done to Terri Schiavo.

[Czhorat]

I was all for until I saw what was done to Terri Schiavo.

I don't want to derail this thread rehashing the Terri Shiavo nightmare; I'll say that I thought that she was already long dead in any meaningful sense and the autopsy result seemed to confirm that.

That aside, what do you want to happen when you're definitively, unequivically, irrevocably dead? Would you want your organs used so that someone else might be able to live, or have them buried or incinerated with the rest of your remains? What, if anything, is the justification for NOT using everyone's organs?

[Lisa4Catholics]

I don't want to derail this thread rehashing the Terri Shiavo nightmare; I'll say that I thought that she was already long dead in any meaningful sense and the autopsy result seemed to confirm that.

That aside, what do you want to happen when you're definitively, unequivically, irrevocably dead? Would you want your organs used so that someone else might be able to live, or have them buried or incinerated with the rest of your remains? What, if anything, is the justification for NOT using everyone's organs?I do not someone elses opinion of death to determine whether to start taking organs. Maybe some people do not want their organs to be used.

[Czhorat]

I do not someone elses opinion of death to determine whether to start taking organs. Maybe some people do not want their organs to be used.

OK, I get that. At some point though, there will be overwhelming consensus that you are dead. At THAT point, when you're sure that you're dead, what do you want done with your organs?

As for people not wanting organs to be used, my question is why? It's a decision that fails every standard of logic and morality I can apply to it.

[mamapajamas]

OK, I get that. At some point though, there will be overwhelming consensus that you are dead. At THAT point, when you're sure that you're dead, what do you want done with your organs?

As for people not wanting organs to be used, my question is why? It's a decision that fails every standard of logic and morality I can apply to it.

I HAVE my DNR and organ donation arrangements.

However, it is not my place... nor yours... to make that decision for anyone else. You speak for YOUR organs, not mine, and not my great-aunt's.

We ALREADY HAVE ways to arrange for our preferences, which is exactly as things should be. Why on earth this huge discussion on whether or not people should donate organs?

[Czhorat]

We ALREADY HAVE ways to arrange for our preferences, which is exactly as things should be. Why on earth this huge discussion on whether or not people should donate organs?

Because of irresponsible scaremongering by those misquoting Cass Sunstein to make it seem that he was advocating the forced harvesting of organs from those still living.

The percentage that do donate is shamefully small. As I said earlier, and nobody has answered this, I see NO logical or moral reason to not donate. Policies that encourage donation would have great benefit. One idea is a kind of mandatory opt-in or opt-out rather than the assumption that those who don't opt-in by default refuse to donate.