You haven't really argued against it as much as you've made pedantic arguments about what you think the government should and shouldn't do. I don't know, you didn't really seem to have a point. Adhoc's the only one that's tried to make a real point about the whole thing with the corruption angle, but it seems to me that more organs in the system will reduce corruption rather than encourage it.
Idea - read the whole thread. I've only been using the legislation angle for the past few pages and even then only to highlight the faux empathy for saving lives. Arguments for which are in themselves anecdotal at best.
Trust, education, resourses, shitting on personal beliefs, circumvention of consent, violation of personal rights, social awareness, disregard of grieving loved-ones, increased risk of abuse, organ donation actually influenced by other factors, opportunistic, exploitative etc.
Of course, I could by lying in a devious scheme to trick you into reading 12 riveting pages of pop talk, infected trees and seasonal produce. Tough call. Choose wisely.
You haven't really argued against it as much as you've made pedantic arguments about what you think the government should and shouldn't do. I don't know, you didn't really seem to have a point. Adhoc's the only one that's tried to make a real point about the whole thing with the corruption angle, but it seems to me that more organs in the system will reduce corruption rather than encourage it.
Idea - read the whole thread. I've only been using the legislation angle for the past few pages and even then only to highlight the faux empathy for saving lives. Arguments for which are in themselves anecdotal at best.
Trust, education, resourses, shitting on personal beliefs, circumvention of consent, violation of personal rights, social awareness, disregard of grieving loved-ones, increased risk of abuse, organ donation actually influenced by other factors, opportunistic, exploitative etc.
Of course, I could by lying in a devious scheme to trick you into reading 12 riveting pages of pop talk, infected trees and seasonal produce. Tough call. Choose wisely.
I've been through the whole thread, dumbshit. I'm not some new interloper to this argument you arrogant prick. And yeah, all of your points have been derived from "it's mah bodeh" in one way or another, and it's been beaten into the ground that that's spiritual, superstitious reasoning that has no place in legislation.
You just totally reminded me of the Scrubs episode where the patients die because the donor had rabies.
And it has that stupid Fray(?) song that every show in the world uses? But for some reason instead of being angry it actually made me tear up because Scrubs is awesome?
Even though it seems the majority of us are donors, I remember this one girl I use to work with looking at my license when I got it. She called me out on being a donor and said if I got in an accident the ambulance would kill me off to steal my organs. Que the entire staff in the area staring at her like she had three heads.
Why are the beliefs of people who don't want to be an organ donor somehow more important than the people who do want to be organ donors?
Because somehow saving lives invalidates those beliefs.
But it doesn't. They can still opt out. But it puts the onus of opting out on those that don't want to, whereas those who want to or don't care either way are already in.
So again, why should the onus of paperwork be on the opt in people and not the opt out people?
Why are the beliefs of people who don't want to be an organ donor somehow more important than the people who do want to be organ donors?
Because somehow saving lives invalidates those beliefs.
But it doesn't. They can still opt out. But it puts the onus of opting out on those that don't want to, whereas those who want to or don't care either way are already in.
So again, why should the onus of paperwork be on the opt in people and not the opt out people?
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
To me it comes down to the government saying, "most people are fine with this, so it's up to you to let us know if you're not". Like how you tell the airline you're a vegetarian.
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
Principle, which is what your argument boils down to, is a shitty reason to not potentially save lives. You are not affected by the government removing your organs after your death in any fashion, you just don't like it in principle and value it more than the right of people to by default give organs and potentially save lives. Show an actual, genuine detrimental effect. People thinking it's icky but not enough to ever bother with the paperwork to get out of it is not a real negative.
Why are the beliefs of people who don't want to be an organ donor somehow more important than the people who do want to be organ donors?
Because somehow saving lives invalidates those beliefs.
But it doesn't. They can still opt out. But it puts the onus of opting out on those that don't want to, whereas those who want to or don't care either way are already in.
So again, why should the onus of paperwork be on the opt in people and not the opt out people?
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
See, if anyone was actually being forced to do anything, I would agree. But since you're just making things up, I can't.
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
Principle, which is what your argument boils down to, is a shitty reason to not potentially save lives. You are not affected by the government removing your organs after your death in any fashion, you just don't like it in principle and value it more than the right of people to by default give organs and potentially save lives. Show an actual, genuine detrimental effect. People thinking it's icky but not enough to ever bother with the paperwork to get out of it is not a real negative.
It doesn't really bug me either way, but people have a particular way of thinking. I see the benefit, but I also see the costs. You are saving lives, but the government is stepping over a pretty ambiguous line.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that some crazy wackjob wouldn't sue because they stole her husbands organs without asking her first? Because no one had made it evidently clear, to them, that they needed to go down to the city hall and file papers to opt-out of this system.
Really, it's going to happen, I would wager money on it.
See, if anyone was actually being forced to do anything, I would agree. But since you're just making things up, I can't.
Well, I'm sorry I used "forced" so loosely. Mistakes happen, especially in the medical world. No one's being forced, but someone may not make it clear that the laws have changed or they need to opt out. Are they going to mail everyone, what if they miss people? Shit like this does happen which is why an opt-in system is largely better at avoiding potential problems.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Are you seriously trying to tell me that some crazy wackjob wouldn't sue because they stole her husbands organs without asking her first? Because no one had made it evidently clear, to them, that they needed to go down to the city hall and file papers to opt-out of this system.
Really, it's going to happen, I would wager money on it.
It'll suck for them when they lose all that money spent on a lawyer. I imagine they'll have about as much success as Jehovah Witnesses suing the government for doctors defaulting to giving one of their people a blood transfusion when the doctors had no idea what the patients position on it is.
Then again, these things have been in place a long time. Thus, people expect them and don't declare outright what they want.
They don't have you sign orders for a blood transfusion where you are? They certainly do it here, and if you're not conscious they have to get permission from your next of kin/proxy. That's just blood transfusions here, not sure what they do in an emergency, since family is usually on hand in those situations to OK it.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
In an emergency they start pumping the O- in you like there's no tomorrow because they don't plan on telling your spouse you died because they wanted to make sure she was okay with it.
In an emergency they start pumping the O- in you like there's no tomorrow because they don't plan on telling your spouse you died because they wanted to make sure she was okay with it.
I could potentially see where this could be a problem with some people. This is too touchy a subject I guess.
I personally prefer the opt-in, but I agree, more lives will be saved with the opt-out system. I know there's a whole, huge group of people that are just like "I can't be bothered to check the box" sort of thing. We'll see how it pans out though.
I can find nothing wrong with it other than the huge costs that are going to come from people trying to sue for it.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It doesn't really bug me either way, but people have a particular way of thinking. I see the benefit, but I also see the costs. You are saving lives, but the government is stepping over a pretty ambiguous line.
This right here is what I don't get. What line are we talking about? I don't see any ambiguity at all in this situation because the only individual that has a claim to their own body when this actually matters no longer exists in any way as far as the government is concerned. After brain death, there's nobody there to say "that's my body and you don't have a right to it!"
It doesn't really bug me either way, but people have a particular way of thinking. I see the benefit, but I also see the costs. You are saving lives, but the government is stepping over a pretty ambiguous line.
This right here is what I don't get. What line are we talking about? I don't see any ambiguity at all in this situation because the only individual that has a claim to their own body when this actually matters no longer exists in any way as far as the government is concerned. After brain death, there's nobody there to say "that's my body and you don't have a right to it!"
But it doesn't become government property, either, does it? If so, does the government foot the bill for burial?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
I can't find a definitive source, but it looks like an autopsy can be refused in some jurisdictions (apparently mostly those with a strong Jewish/Muslim lobby), in others an autopsy can be ordered by law.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
I can't find a definitive source, but it looks like an autopsy can be refused in some jurisdictions (apparently mostly those with a strong Jewish/Muslim lobby), in others an autopsy can be ordered by law.
I guess, I mean.
System A)
Opt-In system, everyone who wishes to contribute can do so willingly to save lives.
System
Opt-Out system, everyone is automatically thrown into the donation pool for organ donation and must take appropriate actions to opt-out. (This system, without a doubt, saves more lives)
Which has the potential to fuck unwilling people over? Really, it's not like I'm advocating "don't do it because the big bad government is making bad rules." System B really does have more of a chance of doing some potentially bad things. Yeah, it's going to push those huge amounts of people that can't be bothered to do it that are definitely all for it, but it's also going to, potentially, aggravate people who weren't clear on the rules and laws and the organs were already harvested.
I think I prefer System B, but in all fairness, the previous lawmakers made a very good decision with going with System A.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
People not being clear on the rules is a reason to advertise the fact and educate them on it. If the judges feel it was appropriately done then they have nothing to complain about and next time should bother to actually make an effort to follow their religious beliefs.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
The government can decide what happens to it, yes. If someone dies of a murder and the government wants an autopsy done to figure out how it doesn't matter what the family believes.
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
I can't find a definitive source, but it looks like an autopsy can be refused in some jurisdictions (apparently mostly those with a strong Jewish/Muslim lobby), in others an autopsy can be ordered by law.
I guess, I mean.
System A)
Opt-In system, everyone who wishes to contribute can do so willingly to save lives.
System
Opt-Out system, everyone is automatically thrown into the donation pool for organ donation and must take appropriate actions to opt-out. (This system, without a doubt, saves more lives)
Which has the potential to fuck unwilling people over? Really, it's not like I'm advocating "don't do it because the big bad government is making bad rules." System B really does have more of a chance of doing some potentially bad things. Yeah, it's going to push those huge amounts of people that can't be bothered to do it that are definitely all for it, but it's also going to, potentially, aggravate people who weren't clear on the rules and laws and the organs were already harvested.
I think I prefer System B, but in all fairness, the previous lawmakers made a very good decision with going with System A.
If you have a problem with it, you opt out. It's just that simple. The government shouldn't go coddling religious beliefs when so many could be saved by this program. More people can be saved, superstitious folk can opt out to be life savers. It doesn't really matter if we step on some toes in the process when lives are very literally at stake.
If you have a problem with it, you opt out. It's just that simple. The government shouldn't go coddling religious beliefs when so many could be saved by this program. More people can be saved, superstitious folk can opt out to be life savers. It doesn't really matter if we step on some toes in the process when lives are very literally at stake.
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
I don't think it really applies in this situation, in all honesty. Well, it may, but in a reversal of what you're suggesting. As it is, the argument could be made that the government is already favoring a religious belief system with an opt-in program. It assumes that people are superstitious enough to think that they exist after death, rather than taking a secular approach, as they most definitely should, and allowing those of superstitious leanings to practice their beliefs freely by opting out.
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
I don't think it really applies in this situation, in all honesty. Well, it may, but in a reversal of what you're suggesting. As it is, the argument could be made that the government is already favoring a religious belief system with an opt-in program. It assumes that people are superstitious enough to think that they exist after death, rather than taking a secular approach, as they most definitely should, and allowing those of superstitious leanings to practice their beliefs freely by opting out.
Well, I'd take it that imposing a donation system where someone would opt-out rather than in would basically infringe on the free exercise clause. Simply from the fact that the law may enter into a situation where it would encroach on their belief system. Whereas the opt-in system has no such potential, other than trying to stipulate some sort of inverse fallacy because religions would be trampled on with an opt-out.
However, I think neutral laws aren't subject to the free exercise clause. This seems like one of those neutral laws. (Remember hearing a case about this in US History)
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
I don't think it really applies in this situation, in all honesty. Well, it may, but in a reversal of what you're suggesting. As it is, the argument could be made that the government is already favoring a religious belief system with an opt-in program. It assumes that people are superstitious enough to think that they exist after death, rather than taking a secular approach, as they most definitely should, and allowing those of superstitious leanings to practice their beliefs freely by opting out.
Well, I'd take it that imposing a donation system where someone would opt-out rather than in would basically infringe on the free exercise clause. Simply from the fact that the law may enter into a situation where it would encroach on their belief system. Whereas the opt-in system has no such potential, other than trying to stipulate some sort of inverse fallacy because religions would be trampled on with an opt-out.
However, I think neutral laws aren't subject to the free exercise clause. This seems like one of those neutral laws. (Remember hearing a case about this in US History)
That would only occur when people choose not to practice their rights. It's not mandatory. If as Quid mentioned, it's accessible and sufficiently publicized, there's no problem.
That would only occur when people choose not to practice their rights. It's not mandatory. If as Quid mentioned, it's accessible and sufficiently publicized, there's no problem.
I'll concede to that.
I still would like proof that the law can completely ignore a religious request not to perform an autopsy. Just for my knowledge.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Give me legal proof then, not some MD's opinion on the matter.
O_o
The MD is saying when doctors are legally compelled to do an autopsy. I trust a doctor to know that. Stop being dense. If your spouse is found on your bed stabbed fifty times, there will be an autopsy and no one gives two shits about your religion.
Quid on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
That would only occur when people choose not to practice their rights. It's not mandatory. If as Quid mentioned, it's accessible and sufficiently publicized, there's no problem.
I'll concede to that.
I still would like proof that the law can completely ignore a religious request not to perform an autopsy. Just for my knowledge.
Um, lol.
You're kidding right?
"Darn this serial killer likes to leave clues in the victim's body and we're only one step away from solving the case but oops the parents of Scooter Jane Inbred won't let us do an autopsy, oh wells lol"
Give me legal proof then, not some MD's opinion on the matter.
O_o
The MD is saying when doctors are legally compelled to do an autopsy. I trust a doctor to know that. Stop being dense. If your spouse is found on your bed stabbed fifty times, there will be an autopsy and no one gives two shits about your religion.
If law enforcement would like to do an autopsy on my 50 times stabbed spouse...I'll be fucking upset...seriously.
Just saying.
Give me legal proof then, not some MD's opinion on the matter.
O_o
The MD is saying when doctors are legally compelled to do an autopsy. I trust a doctor to know that. Stop being dense. If your spouse is found on your bed stabbed fifty times, there will be an autopsy and no one gives two shits about your religion.
If law enforcement would like to do an autopsy on my 50 times stabbed spouse...I'll be fucking upset...seriously.
Just saying.
Well chances are that if your spouse is found stabbed to death you are the one that did it, so I can understand how the work of law enforcement to catch the killer, ie you, would be upsetting. :P
But in all honesty isn't it SOP to press for an autopsy in deaths with suspicious or special circumstances seeing as it is just not about figuring out what killed them but also to collect and secure whatever evidence there might be.
If you have a problem with it, you opt out. It's just that simple. The government shouldn't go coddling religious beliefs when so many could be saved by this program. More people can be saved, superstitious folk can opt out to be life savers. It doesn't really matter if we step on some toes in the process when lives are very literally at stake.
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
...What?
Church on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
If law enforcement would like to do an autopsy on my 50 times stabbed spouse...I'll be fucking upset...seriously.
Just saying.
Because spouses never kill each other and even if they did would never try to stop an autopsy which might convict them.
Also in a world where people intentionally keep their children away from hospitals because they believe it's better they die than be stained by the sin of medicine, can you really tell me no one would ever put their religious beliefs above such things?
Posts
Idea - read the whole thread. I've only been using the legislation angle for the past few pages and even then only to highlight the faux empathy for saving lives. Arguments for which are in themselves anecdotal at best.
Trust, education, resourses, shitting on personal beliefs, circumvention of consent, violation of personal rights, social awareness, disregard of grieving loved-ones, increased risk of abuse, organ donation actually influenced by other factors, opportunistic, exploitative etc.
Of course, I could by lying in a devious scheme to trick you into reading 12 riveting pages of pop talk, infected trees and seasonal produce. Tough call. Choose wisely.
I've been through the whole thread, dumbshit. I'm not some new interloper to this argument you arrogant prick. And yeah, all of your points have been derived from "it's mah bodeh" in one way or another, and it's been beaten into the ground that that's spiritual, superstitious reasoning that has no place in legislation.
Even though it seems the majority of us are donors, I remember this one girl I use to work with looking at my license when I got it. She called me out on being a donor and said if I got in an accident the ambulance would kill me off to steal my organs. Que the entire staff in the area staring at her like she had three heads.
Because somehow saving lives invalidates those beliefs.
So again, why should the onus of paperwork be on the opt in people and not the opt out people?
To me, this sort of falls along the lines of government trying to encroach on the rights and responsibilities of myself. It's my will to donate my orgrans, however, it is not the government's responsibility or power to decide for me. Granted, I can opt out. But how many people know the ins and outs of a system unless it's been clearly laid out for them?
This shit will end badly. You're forcing people to do things they may or may not want to do or be willing to do. Whereas with opt-in, they have to make the sole decision to be part of the system.
To me it comes down to the government saying, "most people are fine with this, so it's up to you to let us know if you're not". Like how you tell the airline you're a vegetarian.
See, if anyone was actually being forced to do anything, I would agree. But since you're just making things up, I can't.
It doesn't really bug me either way, but people have a particular way of thinking. I see the benefit, but I also see the costs. You are saving lives, but the government is stepping over a pretty ambiguous line.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that some crazy wackjob wouldn't sue because they stole her husbands organs without asking her first? Because no one had made it evidently clear, to them, that they needed to go down to the city hall and file papers to opt-out of this system.
Really, it's going to happen, I would wager money on it.
Well, I'm sorry I used "forced" so loosely. Mistakes happen, especially in the medical world. No one's being forced, but someone may not make it clear that the laws have changed or they need to opt out. Are they going to mail everyone, what if they miss people? Shit like this does happen which is why an opt-in system is largely better at avoiding potential problems.
They don't have you sign orders for a blood transfusion where you are? They certainly do it here, and if you're not conscious they have to get permission from your next of kin/proxy. That's just blood transfusions here, not sure what they do in an emergency, since family is usually on hand in those situations to OK it.
I could potentially see where this could be a problem with some people. This is too touchy a subject I guess.
I personally prefer the opt-in, but I agree, more lives will be saved with the opt-out system. I know there's a whole, huge group of people that are just like "I can't be bothered to check the box" sort of thing. We'll see how it pans out though.
I can find nothing wrong with it other than the huge costs that are going to come from people trying to sue for it.
This right here is what I don't get. What line are we talking about? I don't see any ambiguity at all in this situation because the only individual that has a claim to their own body when this actually matters no longer exists in any way as far as the government is concerned. After brain death, there's nobody there to say "that's my body and you don't have a right to it!"
But it doesn't become government property, either, does it? If so, does the government foot the bill for burial?
I remember that families could refuse autopsies based on religious beliefs. Is this not the case? I really would like proof, because I do remember a story to the contrary.
I can't find a definitive source, but it looks like an autopsy can be refused in some jurisdictions (apparently mostly those with a strong Jewish/Muslim lobby), in others an autopsy can be ordered by law.
I guess, I mean.
System A)
Opt-In system, everyone who wishes to contribute can do so willingly to save lives.
System
Opt-Out system, everyone is automatically thrown into the donation pool for organ donation and must take appropriate actions to opt-out. (This system, without a doubt, saves more lives)
Which has the potential to fuck unwilling people over? Really, it's not like I'm advocating "don't do it because the big bad government is making bad rules." System B really does have more of a chance of doing some potentially bad things. Yeah, it's going to push those huge amounts of people that can't be bothered to do it that are definitely all for it, but it's also going to, potentially, aggravate people who weren't clear on the rules and laws and the organs were already harvested.
I think I prefer System B, but in all fairness, the previous lawmakers made a very good decision with going with System A.
Way to put words in my mouth.
I just asked if someone could refuse an autopsy on a family member if it violated their religious rights. Not as a scapegoat to murder.
Give me legal proof then, not some MD's opinion on the matter.
If you have a problem with it, you opt out. It's just that simple. The government shouldn't go coddling religious beliefs when so many could be saved by this program. More people can be saved, superstitious folk can opt out to be life savers. It doesn't really matter if we step on some toes in the process when lives are very literally at stake.
I guess first amendment rights be damned (in the US).
I don't think it really applies in this situation, in all honesty. Well, it may, but in a reversal of what you're suggesting. As it is, the argument could be made that the government is already favoring a religious belief system with an opt-in program. It assumes that people are superstitious enough to think that they exist after death, rather than taking a secular approach, as they most definitely should, and allowing those of superstitious leanings to practice their beliefs freely by opting out.
Well, I'd take it that imposing a donation system where someone would opt-out rather than in would basically infringe on the free exercise clause. Simply from the fact that the law may enter into a situation where it would encroach on their belief system. Whereas the opt-in system has no such potential, other than trying to stipulate some sort of inverse fallacy because religions would be trampled on with an opt-out.
However, I think neutral laws aren't subject to the free exercise clause. This seems like one of those neutral laws. (Remember hearing a case about this in US History)
That would only occur when people choose not to practice their rights. It's not mandatory. If as Quid mentioned, it's accessible and sufficiently publicized, there's no problem.
I'll concede to that.
I still would like proof that the law can completely ignore a religious request not to perform an autopsy. Just for my knowledge.
The MD is saying when doctors are legally compelled to do an autopsy. I trust a doctor to know that. Stop being dense. If your spouse is found on your bed stabbed fifty times, there will be an autopsy and no one gives two shits about your religion.
Um, lol.
You're kidding right?
"Darn this serial killer likes to leave clues in the victim's body and we're only one step away from solving the case but oops the parents of Scooter Jane Inbred won't let us do an autopsy, oh wells lol"
If law enforcement would like to do an autopsy on my 50 times stabbed spouse...I'll be fucking upset...seriously.
Just saying.
Well chances are that if your spouse is found stabbed to death you are the one that did it, so I can understand how the work of law enforcement to catch the killer, ie you, would be upsetting. :P
But in all honesty isn't it SOP to press for an autopsy in deaths with suspicious or special circumstances seeing as it is just not about figuring out what killed them but also to collect and secure whatever evidence there might be.
...What?
Because spouses never kill each other and even if they did would never try to stop an autopsy which might convict them.
Also in a world where people intentionally keep their children away from hospitals because they believe it's better they die than be stained by the sin of medicine, can you really tell me no one would ever put their religious beliefs above such things?