[Howard]

(Original post by cottonmouth)
Well that principle alone, with no context, is certainly a bad one. I know in law silence is not affirmation (to contracts for example). But in the context of this debate, i think we can concede a bit.

One thing that needs to be made clear is that we are talking about an opt-out system. So putting your principle into place, we can't call it silence by affirmation. It would be acceptance by conduct if you had the option of opting-out, but did nothing about it. And acceptance by conduct is a relevant principle in law(with contracts for example again)- and we could say that these things are contractual in a sense.

Well, how many times do I rush out of the house, drive ten miles, and then discover I'd left my wallet on the sideboard? 100's of times. And if my wallet contained my "opt out" card but I got skittled on the journey then I'd be carved up regardless.

Not sure we can say that this is in any way contractual tbh. As you know, one of the provisions of a contract is that both parties give up one thing in return for another - this clearly isn't the case here. Acceptance by conduct in contract is also by way of taking a positive step - that's why it's often called a "step in action" and never by doing nothing or silence.

[cottonmouth]

(Original post by Howard)
Well, how many times do I rush out of the house, drive ten miles, and then discover I'd left my wallet on the sideboard? 100's of times. And if my wallet contained my "opt out" card but I got skittled on the journey then I'd be carved up regardless.

Not sure we can say that this is in any way contractual tbh. As you know, one of the provisions of a contract is that both parties give up one thing in return for another - this clearly isn't the case here. Acceptance by conduct in contract is also by way of taking a positive step - that's why it's often called a "step in action" and never by doing nothing or silence.

I think there would have to be a database to store the information, for sure. There is one now isn't there, as well as the cards people carry?

But surely if you are required to act to stop something, not stopping it is a form of conduct? In the same way that omission to act can be an actus for a crime, though it is the opposite of an action.

We would be required to act to not have our organs taken. Our omission to act would therefore be an act in itself- finishing the accpetance to having our organs donated.

Regarding your point about consideration, there is consideration on both sides. However slight our own is, it could be as small as feeling we have done a good deed, gaining moral points, whatever. And its easy to see the consideration on the other side- getting body parts.

[Howard]

(Original post by cottonmouth)
I think there would have to be a database to store the information, for sure. There is one now isn't there, as well as the cards people carry?

But surely if you are required to act to stop something, not stopping it is a form of conduct? In the same way that omission to act can be an actus for a crime, though it is the opposite of an action.

We would be required to act to not have our organs taken. Our omission to act would therefore be an act in itself- finishing the accpetance to having our organs donated.

Regarding your point about consideration, there is consideration on both sides. However slight our own is, it could be as small as feeling we have done a good deed, gaining moral points, whatever. And its easy to see the consideration on the other side- getting body parts.

Would that example stand up in court? I thought consideration had to be material even if it takes the form of the smallest monetary token of a penny. I'm not sure if a presumption that the person "felt good" about it would be very helpful.

Besides, as I say, I don't really see many contractual paralells with this and certainly don't see any omission parallels in criminal law. I'm not sure these legal analogies are much use to us.

[cottonmouth]

(Original post by Howard)
Would that example stand up in court? I thought consideration had to be material even if it takes the form of the smallest monetary token of a penny. I'm not sure if a presumption that the person "felt good" about it would be very helpful.

Besides, as I say, I don't really see many contractual paralells with this and certainly don't see any omission parallels in criminal law. I'm not sure these legal analogies are much use to us.

There are 2 systems- money and other objects. This only realy concerns debt repayments i think. But if a person decides to accept an object as payment for a debt, it's their own fault if it doesn't equal the same monetary value- the acceptance belies a subjective value placed on an object by the acceptor. With money this can't be done, because of course money is currency, and can only be taken at face value.

I see what you are saying about "feeling good", but it wouldn't matter if we are to look at this contractually, which is what we are debating about.....now:

When you are born you immediately enter into a contract with society and the establishment- you will follow the rules, to your own detriment, you will be protected by the state to your benefit(and their detriment). So i really do think we can use contractul parallels, if we are even to call them mere parallels. I would argue that the issue is contractual, now i think about it more.



I think

No. Consideration doesn't at all have to be material. All you have to show is that there was a factual benefit or detriment to the parties

[ol3]

When you are born you immediately enter into a contract with society

This analogy doesn't stand as firstly there is no 'offer and acceptance' and secondly, society is not a legal entity, so you can't have a contract with it. There is also the problem of minority in that, bar for certain exceptions, contracts are not enforcable against minors.

[Agent Smith]

Once you start accepting stuff off the State, ie as soon as you enter the maternity ward, you in a sense "owe" it something. And schools, the NHS, blah blah blah. The problem is that it's impossible to compare like with like and say that any one person's taxes do or don't balance out what they take from the State.

[cottonmouth]

(Original post by ol3)
This analogy doesn't stand as firstly there is no 'offer and acceptance' and secondly, society is not a legal entity, so you can't have a contract with it. There is also the problem of minority in that, bar for certain exceptions, contracts are not enforcable against minors.

The establishment- the STATE- IS a legal entity.

It isn't a contract in the sense of a written document laid down between parties. Contract is a term used to describe a legal relationship between parties, where there are terms and conditions that must be met. You are talking about the Law of Contract, and not just contracts in the general definition of the word.

[Clubber Lang]

The person who does should have the right to say what happens to their body - if they want something done on religious grounds then its asburd to say the state should be able to take the organs because they believe in scientific reasons.

[_jackofdiamonds]

if they want something done on religious grounds then its asburd to say the state should be able to take the organs because they believe in scientific reasons.

I'd say that was the wrong way round.

[Clubber Lang]

(Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
I'd say that was the wrong way round.

Fine, but you or the state don't own my body - i'll do with it as a i please (via family) when i am gone.

[Invocation]

When exactly would they sign it ? When they are unconscious? Or right before they are unexpectedly hit by the bus ?

[Arminius]

I think making the system opt-out rather than opt-in is a sensible idea, as long as the next of kin can overrule the decision (if you never stated a preference yourself).

I'm sure there are alot more dead people that would have given their organs but never bothered to sign up, than there are dead people who are angry their organs were used to save someones life.

[Clubber Lang]

(Original post by Zebedee)
I think making the system opt-out rather than opt-in is a sensible idea, as long as the next of kin can overrule the decision (if you never stated a preference yourself).

I'm sure there are alot more dead people that would have given their organs but never bothered to sign up, than there are dead people who are angry their organs were used to save someones life.

What about the melt down when 55millions entries are sent to the database? (I assume the vast majority are not donor card holders)

Do we have to keep the current system for the next 10 years whilst the database is updated and to ensure people who have not been entered do not have their organs taken out?

[Socrates]

(Original post by Howard)
Why? Because I just don't see why someone's body parts should become property of the state by default unless they sign a waiver.

I agree. I don't see why most otherwise rational people are willing to trust the state with so much power.

[_jackofdiamonds]

(Original post by Socrates)
I agree. I don't see why most otherwise rational people are willing to trust the state with so much power.

You can't infringe on the rights on a corpse!!

[SuperhansFavouriteAlsatian]

Agreed, predicably, with Socrates and Howard. Personally i'm well up for my organs being harvested, but the state shouldn't automatically gain access to my body the minute I die just because I didn't sign a form. They are the ones getting something in this, they should need permission - we shouldn't need permission to not have our bodies cut up.

[Cookie The Blue Monster]

The only objection I have for this is if it causes people to engineer "accidents", but I'm sure everyone's about to tell me that's unrealistic and far-fetched.

[Agent Smith]

(Original post by DanGrover)
Agreed, predicably, with Socrates and Howard. Personally i'm well up for my organs being harvested, but the state shouldn't automatically gain access to my body the minute I die just because I didn't sign a form. They are the ones getting something in this, they should need permission - we shouldn't need permission to not have our bodies cut up.

But if the other option is simply wasting them, surely almost anything is preferable.

[Wez]

How about forcing everyone, when they register to vote, register for a passport etc. to sign a document saying they will or will not have their organs donated after they die?

That way the individual has power over his own body and the state doesn't automatically take his organs without consent, yet the number of organs donated will still increase.

[ItalianSam]

(Original post by Wez)
How about forcing everyone, when they register to vote, register for a passport etc. to sign a document saying they will or will not have their organs donated after they die?

That way the individual has power over his own body and the state doesn't automatically take his organs without consent, yet the number of organs donated will still increase.

I agree. This is a good idea,giving the State the acceptance of a certain citizen. But, what about the non-voters citizens..(or not citizens but who have residence in England,for example) such as immigrants?
They die as well ;-).So of course, it would be an even better idea to extend this law to (for example) the entire European Unions(which is of course easier at this time than extending to other countries).

I think it's interesting the related question we can point out.
Does the state own a body?
I am not studying Law but i don't think any of the democracy laws have ever stated so.

p.s.
Well, personally, I would not mind helping other people surviving after my death..(which stands more or less for.."take whatever you want, after all I'm not alive " ;-))