abc@BRL.ARPA (Brint Cooper) (09/29/86)
Unless the definition of "cannibalism" taught in law school is different from the "dictionary definition," assuming donative intent seems quite a bit removed from cannibalism, as the latter has to do with digestive consumption (eating) of another human being. A far more horrific scenario is already coming into play: the severe shortage of organs available for transplant requires that physicians and others on committees decide which patient lives and which patient dies. Brinton Cooper
garry@TCGOULD.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (10/02/86)
In a recent article on mod.legal, ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Dave Massey) wrote: > I know this is not the type of topic we usually discuss >on this network, but I had to get this out. I read a case >in Trusts as Estates that dealt with Anatomical Gifts. >After the case the editors pointed out that we would have >far more donated organs if we placed the burden on the >person "not interested in saving life" and not vice versa. >In other words, they proposed, I kid you not, that we >operate on the presumption (rebuttable, I hope) that >EVERYONE wanted to donate unless they took an affirmative >action to indicate to the contrary. They also added that >this is routine in some parts of Europe. The government has already established many many rules as to what may be done, what can't be done, and what must be done with a dead human body. If no one cares enough about a given dead body to say "please do" or "please don't", a default of "may donate" in place of "can't donate" doesn't seem like a big deal. Me, I'm on my second or third donor card. They wear out after a sufficient number of years in my wallet :-). Too bad New York won't print it right onto my driver's license and perpetuate it for me automatically... garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu)
garry@cadif.DECnet ("CADIF::GARRY") (10/03/86)
In a recent article on info-law, ASPDMM@UOFT01.BITNET (Dave Massey) wrote: Message-ID: <8610020801.ab02421@SEM.BRL.ARPA> > I know this is not the type of topic we usually discuss >on this network, but I had to get this out. I read a case >in Trusts as Estates that dealt with Anatomical Gifts. >After the case the editors pointed out that we would have >far more donated organs if we placed the burden on the >person "not interested in saving life" and not vice versa. >In other words, they proposed, I kid you not, that we >operate on the presumption (rebuttable, I hope) that >EVERYONE wanted to donate unless they took an affirmative >action to indicate to the contrary. They also added that >this is routine in some parts of Europe. The government has already established many many rules as to what may be done, what can't be done, and what must be done with a dead human body. If no one cares enough about a given dead body to say "please do" or "please don't", a default of "may donate" in place of "can't donate" doesn't seem like a big deal. Me, I'm on my second or third donor card. They wear out after a sufficient number of years in my wallet :-). Too bad New York won't print it right onto my driver's license and perpetuate it for me automatically... garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu) ------
amsler@MOUTON.ARPA (Robert Amsler) (10/08/86)
Hummm... This does suggest some possibilities, such as mandatory donation of organs of criminals killed in commission of a crime or of those executed at state facilities.