🚀 go-pugleaf

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)
------