The idea of a national ID card was floated some time ago publically by politicians and others and met with an extremely heavy opposition. It was to be called the 'Australia Card' if I remember right. People were opposed widely I think on the grounds that it offended their privacy, and had overtones of 'Big Brother'. We have no real equivalent to the USA Social Security Number. There is a Tax File Number, but its primary use is what it sounds like - taxes, and you would only ever need it for issues related to taxes.

As for asking anyone to "seize people's organs without consent", I've done no such thing. I merely reported and agreed with a proposal made in the UK. As I see it, it isn't seizing without consent, it's placing an expectation/responsibility on people to make an informed decision and state their position about an issue which relates strongly to their place in the wider community in the modern world. If they don't want to be involved in organ donation, they simply opt out. Perhaps yet another approach would be to force a response from people during their senior school years, or before they are allowed to receive a tax return each year. The whole idea is absolutely not taking organs from people who don't want it, it's identifying people who do want it but don't get around to saying so, or can't be bothered making a decision. Now that I thought of it, I like the idea of it being on the tax return form each year a lot.

This boggles me, there are those here who think identifying oneself is an invastion of privacy too. Its especially a problem when those who are afraid "big brother" is involving himself in too many aspects of their lives also demand "big brother" provide for all aspects of their lives. My health is none of the government's concern - the government should take care of all aspects of my health.

Knowing that Jill's name is actually Jill, and that Jill is Jill, and Jill is a citizen of the country Jill wants you to believe she is, is not a violation of Jill's priviacy. I'd love to hear from someone who believes otherwise.



I'm sorry to confuse this issue with basic logic and critical thinking, but when an individual has not given their consent to do something to them, if that "something" is done to them, it is done without consent.

I submit that existing as a human being, is not automatic consent to having ones organs extracted from their body and redistributed to strangers upon death in the same way the law can stipulate driving on government roads is automatic consent to field sobriety tests if a law enforcement officer suspects a driver of operating while intoxicated.



[quote=kevmartin;95923]...it's placing an expectation/responsibility on people to make an informed decision and state their position about an issue which relates strongly to their place in the wider community in the modern world.[/qupte]

I don't know the ins and outs of Australia's constitution, but my government isn't there to place expectations and responsibilities on people.

My government exists (or is supposed to) for the purpose of protecting individual liberties, not curtailing them by blanket designation of all citizens



I have no problem with questioning people. My problem is pretending to assume they want to be cut up and their parts distributed upon death unless they went out of their way to indicate otherwise during life.

Well privacy may be the wrong term, but I still don't like it that every shop owner knows who I am because he's able to read my RFID-Chip.

Putting that information in a database enables them to track where I am and what I'm buying.

Like real life tracking cookies.

You can get cases or backs to prevent them from reading that information, but as long as you don't get them together with your ID or passport It still seems wrong.

The public broadcasters are warning people running around with unsecured passports though.

Then pay cash for your purchases. There is nothing wrong with a business owner ensuring the credit card you are using is yours.

What? I don't see you point.



About the credit cards:
It's really not common to pay by credit card here, people usually pay cash. Most shops don't even allow credit card payment.

I even don't know someone using credit card. lol

Privacy issues and socialized medicine are really completely separate issues. You can start another thread on health care if you want - perhaps I'll discuss it if it seems interesting.
I don't think it's such a black and white issue that you can say it's 'you either believe this (the above statement) or you don't.
As for the card and privacy, I think here it comes down to a perception that it just isn't needed. Australia sees itself as a relaxed place that's not as overrun with many problems that the Northern hemisphere countries are. 'You can do as you like as long as you don't hurt me or mine, and mind your own business' is a very popular paradigm. 'Mateship' - a somewhat abstract concept - is I believe legally defined as part of what it means to be Australian - part of a set of values that new citizens have to demonstrate their understanding of and state their agreement with, before they are allowed citizenship. Having a national ID card just sits a little at odds with all that in people's minds - it doesn't go hand in hand with 'you mind your business and I'll mind mine, and we'll get along just fine, mate'.

If it all seems a bit strange or confusing to you, don't worry, that's quite normal. Australia is a very 'laid back' place to live - much more so than the USA in some ways.

So, do we bury people without their consent, rather than cremate them by default, if they have not specified which they prefer? Is that OK? If so, why is that so different from organ harvesting? When it comes down to it, are the three things really not just 3 different forms of disposal of the body? It is a simple matter to argue that someone who has not "given consent" to organ donor participation, has also not "given consent" to NOT being a donor. I just can't reconcile why it's such a a big deal to you for people to have a responsibility to state their views on a decision, or have the decision made on their behalf when they are dead.

Ok, that's good. Is it common for a store, when you go pay cash for a music CD or a garden tool, for them to demand identification so they can put you in a database?

They aren't completely seperate at all, they have one major element very much in common - government involvement and intrusion in your life.

When I went to Australia, I didn't get the feeling that "I can do as I like if I mind my own business." For starters, they did a very thorough check of my belongings that I was bringing into the country.

Of course, I have no problem with that, there's good reason. More importantly, I don't think I could just move to Australia, find a job, and take advantage of all the benefits of citizenship there. If I recall, Australia has a pretty strict immigration policy - which I totally respect, and wish my government had the balls and national self-interest to enforce.

When you go to the medical center, do you not have to present some sort of credentials that show who you are? How about to drive a car or use a library?


To be honest, I don't know for sure what they do with dead people who have no family come forward to execute their wishes. I think I saw something on TV about a paupers graveyard, and caskets (no urns) were being buried. But I don't know. What I do know, is they give the remains some sort of basic respectful burial, they don't harvest their parts and grind the rest up for use as fertilizer or animal feed, or provide the corpse to medical students to play with. The reason is there is no presupposition that the government owns your body and is just letting you use it while you're alive. I'd like to keep it that way.


What would you think about increasing incentives for people to have their organs donated, such as allowing the private sector to set up a system where a person could be paid to commit to organ donation, or even sell a cornea or kidney? That would insure there are more organs for people who need them.

That's your opinion - I don't believe national healthcare is intrusive - it is an aspect of a civilized society exercising a sense of community. As I said - different thread.

What you are talking about is border protection and quite different to what I was describing which is the way people are regarded by each other once here. Just because the society here has this laid back attitude does not mean we have an open border policy and people can come and go as they please. I do recall when I was traveling a couple of years ago, when I got back to Australia everybody lined up for the customs checkpoint into two separate lines - people with Aussie passports, and everyone else.

Medical center - the ID you need depends on how you wish to pay. I think you could show no ID and pay cash if you like, though that would seem silly because we have a national healthcare system (Medicare) where if you identify yourself you get most of the cost rebated to you. There is a card for participation in Medicare, but that is its only purpose.
Driving a car - I think I already stated early in this discussion that we do have drivers licenses. But that is a voluntary behaviour - you don't have to drive a car if you dont want to, and a licensing system there is completely in line with the social philosophy as it is part of ensuring that people don't harm others.
Library - requires a membership card, which would each be administered completely independently by the local government Council which owns the library. I don't remember exactly what was required, but last time I joined a library (quite some time ago) I think the requirements for ID were very light.

You missed the point. There is a default behaviour for dealing with dead people which is to bury them. Why is this an acceptable default for people who don't say otherwise, rather than for example, a default behaviour of cremation unless you expressly say you want to be buried? What if a person has a religious conviction that requires them to be cremated, but they don't openly state this on paper, so they get buried (against their wishes)?

I would not dismiss the idea outright. But the first part of the idea (payment for commitment in advance of death) seems much more acceptable than payment for organs while living. The latter has a moral issue of preying on the poor to be considered. However, either way, this is the type of proposal that warrants discussion by a large scale community forum in my opinion, as I mentioned earlier would be a good approach to policy making on this whole subject.
Of course, private enterprise in Australia is much much less involved in the healthcare system than in the USA (because we have a national healthcare system), so I'm not sure there is a clear place in the market here for such an initiative.

I think you missed the point too. There's a difference between burying someone and what amounts to grave robbing before the body has hit room temperature.

What claim are you suggesting that the government has to a person's organs upon their death? What is the basis of that claim?


So you don't mind stealing organs from the poor once they die, you just don't want to see them paid for them while they are alive.

The solution to any shortage of something is increasing incentives to produce it, not laying claim to it by power. In the case of organ donation, if people would just have more opportunity to say yes, they would. If they don't say yes, that's their answer and they should be left in peace about it.

If there is a difference I suggest it is based on your personal values. Physically, all three (burial, cremation, harvesting) are methods of disposal of a corpse. Differences between them seem likely to be based on opinions and beliefs to me. So as I have been suggesting it comes down to which belief/opinion should be the default one. My belief is it makes no difference to you once you are a corpse and your body is destined to simply decompose unless otherwise disposed of. So why not make use of it to help others, unless the person concerned has made it clear they have some conviction (religious or otherwise) against this concept, in which case we should do them the courtesy of honouring those wishes.

The terminology seems pretty tainted, but if you insists ... The 'claim' is to use organs for transplant to others who need them. The 'basis' is twofold:
1. The people concerned are able to simply state a denial of claim while they are alive (or if they are minors, their parents can do so).
2. It is for the greater good by facilitation of a transplant program.


Only because there are sociological issues at stake. For examples, I would not like to see people with a low intellect and a gambling problem suckered into giving up an eye or a kidney because the opportunity was presented to them. Or someone who realizes they are not going to be able to meet the mortgage payment after the 10th rise in interest rates since they got the loan a few years ago, during which time they were also laid off at work. Or people manipulated by con artists calling themselves preachers, into 'donating their organs for God' (so they could add the proceeds into the collection plate.

There is also a separate issue of social economics at play - if a free market in organs is effectively established, it will quickly come to pass that only the rich can get transplants, as the price of the surgery goes through the roof. This might also affect the option of preselling organs before you die for post death harvesting.

Again a matter of opinion and conjecture. To me, the fact that my death might potentially save several other lives, is a great incentive. I think this is an area where normal economic simplicities don't really apply. And again you are assuming that the default answer is "no". Who is to say that the majority of people would not say "of course" by default? You?

As a side issue, you have made it clear previously that people in prison should have pretty much all rights removed (ref: thread on marriage in prison) - should prisoners be ripe for organ harvesting by default, or even, against their stated wishes (because their wishes have no value to you)?

A good post Kevmartin, I can second this.

Let's call them "sociological issues." You seem to like that term better. In any case, the differentiating, or lack therof, should be left to the individual, not the government.



[quote=kevmartin;95978]The terminology seems pretty tainted, but if you insists ... The 'claim' is to use organs for transplant to others who need
1. That's a solution in search of a problem. People who want their organs donated already can and do have them donated. Your problem, is not enough people are stepping forward to be an organ donar, so you want to have the government lay claim to people's body - your "solution" involves taking things without real voluntary consent. This is also where you abandon your supposed concern for "sociological issues" where people who don't speak the language or have low intellect might not know what deal they have gotten themselves into simply by existing, but wouldn't approve given the decision to make.

2. I don't like when I hear about something being taken away "for the greater good." Its not a healthy precedent. It presupposes that "the greater good" is the same for everyone. Its just bad language.

There goes your concern for the "greater good." If more people are donating organs and receive donated organs, isn't that a greater good? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too.



If the vast majority would say yes, there is no need to seize people's organs without consent. Simply increase the opportunity for them to make the decision to say yes. Again, a solution in search of a problem, if what you suggest is true. BTW, I agree that knowing you'll help someone is enough incentive, that's why I'm an organ donar. BTW, are you currently designated in writing as an organ donar today? How about you mrigns? Just curious.


No. I think prisoners should have the opportunity to be an organ donar, but not have it forced on them. Marriage in prison is a priveledge. I don't consider keeping your body intact as a priveledge. Prisoners shouldn't have their organs confiscated for "the greater good" for the same reason medical experiments shouldn't be performed on them even if for "the greater good."