hypothetical situation...

[star2589]

I wasn't sure if this is the best forum for this thread, but I'll just post it here for now and the mods can move it if they think there is a better place for it.

I was discussing this with a friend, and was curious what you all think.

suppose that Joe is driving down the free way and through some sort of negligent (not malicious) act, he gets into a car accident with Bill. Joe is alright, but Bill is critically wounded. Bill won't survive without a blood transfusion, and a kidney transplant would also be beneficial to his health, as one of his kidneys was destroyed.

for whatever reason, there is no supply of donor blood or kidneys that could be given to Bill, but Bill and Joe have compatible blood types. Joe doesn't want to donate blood or a kidney to Bill.

would you support a law that forced Joe to donate blood and a kidney to Bill?

[Rhino]

No.

[Jester21]

Nope. I'd hope that Joe would volunteer, but he shouldn't be forced.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

No one should be forced.

[The_Elucidator]

If Joe is an illegal then yes!

[Jack_Savage]

Prisoners on Death Row, deviants who are found guilty of recruitment, Gitmo's, yes.

Take that Green River Serial Killer for example, if he could save Fred Thompsons life with a Kidney match who would be against that here just because he didn't want to give it?

[The_Elucidator]

If the 'Rats have their way and implement Hitlerycare then the answer to this will be yes! Unless Bill is no longer viable to the workforce or lives someplace other than a electoral swing state and a registered Republican in which case he is TOAST...

[Kathy30]

Bill should die and all his organs be harvested to help dozens of others.

In all honesty.

No.

There is nothing more creepy than being harvested for your organs.

[star2589]

considering that Joe is responsible for Bill's condition, why should joe not be forced to donate blood or a kidney? why is it different from Joe (or Joe's insurance) from being forced to replace Bills car?

[Jester21]

Because it's Joe's body. You can't make laws forcing someone to do something with their own body.

[AceKing]

This conversation would only make sense if we didn't have blood banks and dialysis machines. But my answer would still be "no."

[Air Force Guy]

All humor aside, I'm trying to envision a situation where organ donation, or even blood donation, could be forced on someone.

The situation would have to be so contrived as to be almost outside the realm of reasonable possibility.

However, I WOULD offer a criminal an option of donation or a serious jail stretch....or maybe just a reduction in jail time. It would depend on the criminal's relationship to the patient and the nature of the crime committed.

[Timberwolf]

considering that Joe is responsible for Bill's condition, why should joe not be forced to donate blood or a kidney? why is it different from Joe (or Joe's insurance) from being forced to replace Bills car?
They're called ACCIDENTS for a reason and, though you stated Joe was somewhat negligent, he did not act maliciously to purposely do harm. Had he, with malice and forethought, rammed Bill's car, then we MIGHT be able to speak of coercing Joe to donate both...but, only if it was proved without doubt that he acted maliciously (criminally) to do harm.

But, FTR, no freakin' way.

[ThomasMore]

No.

[ThomasMore]

I'm trying to envision a situation where organ donation, or even blood donation, could be forced on someone.

Nazi Germany. The USSR. Communist China. Cuba. Name your tyranny.

[mateusrosé]

You know, that's a very interesting question. Of course I said "no," but we shouldn't just dismiss the possibility that this could happen. It's not that much different, for example, from John Edwards pushing a health care plan that, forget mandatory coverage, requires an annual physical--and for women, regular mammograms. Hmmmm....I guess that old "it's my body" mantra only applies to abortions :confused:.

Anyway, I digress. It's not that big a stretch to see a day in which one's organs, that after all belong to the gov-mint if the gov-mint's paying for everything, aren't yours to do with as you wish. Yikes.

[Eagle1]

the libs would love this
they get to control you even after you die (physically that is)

wouldn't be long before live organ transplants were mandated to save party members and donors

[Eagle1]

not to mention universal health care becoming a reality, makes it even more of a certainty

[ThomasMore]

It's not that big a stretch to see a day in which one's organs, that after all belong to the gov-mint if the gov-mint's paying for everything, aren't yours to do with as you wish. Yikes.

Exactly correct, Mateus.

When the government pays for your health care, the government pays for what you do with your body.

Then they will tell you what you can do with your body -- and it isn't yours, any more.

The argument is already being made in some areas. If you smoke cigarettes, some people are already arguing that you should be prohibited because of the health care costs.

If you bear your own costs in increased premiums, or find an insurer who is willing to insure you, who cares? But some people are already applying the argument against activities THEY wouldn't do.

[Maggie_T]

What Thomas said. Every time.

The answer is NO, NO, NO.

I shiver at the thought of the consequences (slippery slope) of such a law.