Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Aye for the complete opposite reason
    Why does the state own you, are you about to announce your selection back to the left? Fundamentally, how can an individual own anything if they do not own themselves?

    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Imagine valuing the decomposing organs of Joe Bloggs over saving someones life. Madness.
    Several dead people is better than one

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why does the state own you, are you about to announce your selection back to the left? Fundamentally, how can an individual own anything if they do not own themselves?

    Several dead people is better than one

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's the state's job to act in the best interest of the people, liberty and freedom are secondary to that main objective. Economic liberty is all well and good as it serves in the best interest of the people, social liberalism (like ownership of organs) does not. Should the state allow self harm, seeing as it's the person's own body that they're harming? Personally, I don't think so.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Why does the state own you, are you about to announce your selection back to the left? Fundamentally, how can an individual own anything if they do not own themselves?



    Several dead people is better than one

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Said as a joke but also what you genuinely believe in.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    It's the state's job to act in the best interest of the people, liberty and freedom are secondary to that main objective. Economic liberty is all well and good as it serves in the best interest of the people, social liberalism (like ownership of organs) does not. Should the state allow self harm, seeing as it's the person's own body that they're harming? Personally, I don't think so.
    I suggest you try talking to Airmed then to try to get very very strict structures in place to stop self harm,oh, and while at it try talking to the chancellor and home secretary to get them to allow the likely tens of billions required for enforcement of all petty laws, the policing budget would likely end up the biggest budget.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    I suggest you try talking to Airmed then to try to get very very strict structures in place to stop self harm,oh, and while at it try talking to the chancellor and home secretary to get them to allow the likely tens of billions required for enforcement of all petty laws, the policing budget would likely end up the biggest budget.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Im nit saying that its realistically possible to stop all of that happening, im saying that the state should not be condoning it and should be working on prevention as much as it practically can.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Im nit saying that its realistically possible to stop all of that happening, im saying that the state should not be condoning it and should be working on prevention as much as it practically can.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Not condoning something does a grand total of jack and prevention is a funny one given you need measures and targeting. Regardless, you still haven't explained why we do not own our bodies, something that is arguably a fundamentally left wing idea

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Life_peer)
    Is it not obvious? Human body is a single entity developed from two cells and the parts which are considered individual organs based on their functional separation are not able to function without it, which makes their theoretical classification as individual entities by law entirely arbitrary and by my opinion wrong.

    Your statement that “the organs are not the deceased's to withhold” is nonsense because the organs are the deceased.
    Their classification as parts of the body which are necessary for it to function cannot possibly be relevant for a deceased body. The organs are not the deceased's to withhold - indeed, they're nobody's to withhold - and nor is the deceased themselves. The state may make a legitimate claim to any dead body for any reason.
    Offline

    18
    No
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not condoning something does a grand total of jack and prevention is a funny one given you need measures and targeting. Regardless, you still haven't explained why we do not own our bodies, something that is arguably a fundamentally left wing idea

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Its nothing to do with left and right. Ots about big state vs small state.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    Its nothing to do with left and right. Ots about big state vs small state.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    So you're saying that making everything state owned isn't a left sing idea?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    So you're saying that making everything state owned isn't a left sing idea?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When did i say that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Lime-man)
    When did i say that?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If I am a possession of the state does it not follow that my possessions are possessions of the state, surely the cornerstone of economic liberalism and private ownership is self ownership

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If I am a possession of the state does it not follow that my possessions are possessions of the state, surely the cornerstone of economic liberalism and private ownership is self ownership

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    One can easily find a utilitarian justification for economic liberalism. Moreover, it is not necessary that an individual be owned by the state for their organs to be freely used upon their death, merely that they do not own themselves, or that the concept of ownership is less absolute than according to libertarian theory.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
    One can easily find a utilitarian justification for economic liberalism. Moreover, it is not necessary that an individual be owned by the state for their organs to be freely used upon their death, merely that they do not own themselves, or that the concept of ownership is less absolute than according to libertarian theory.
    This.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I am vehemently opposed to this bill. Whilst I believe the state should do everything it can to help those who are dying or seriously ill, it should not do so at the expense of the rights of others. A dead person is still a person and as such you should have their explicit permission if you are going to violate their body. There are many reasons why someone may unknowingly not be able to opt out, such as if they don't know English or if they have a mental impediment (the technical term has slipped my mind). Just as in rape cases, you can't deem consent has been given just because they didn't explicitly say no, on this matter you can not assume somebody has opted in just because they haven't opted out. This is another case of the state going too far and thinking it has limitless power of its people. The states role is to govern, not to claim ownership over you and your body (whether dead or alive).

    I think I explained my opposition to this better in the Labour subforum, unfortunately I no longer have access to those posts to share with everybody :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe people who opt out of automatic donation should be put at the bottom of the transplant list?
    If you're not prepared to give after your death, why should selfless people help you in your hour of need?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Aye
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Mike Sherry)
    Maybe people who opt out of automatic donation should be put at the bottom of the transplant list?
    If you're not prepared to give after your death, why should selfless people help you in your hour of need?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Does that mean that the rich should also get better services than the poor because they contribute more? Or how about those who opt in go to the top of the list?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by cBay)
    I am vehemently opposed to this bill. Whilst I believe the state should do everything it can to help those who are dying or seriously ill, it should not do so at the expense of the rights of others. A dead person is still a person and as such you should have their explicit permission if you are going to violate their body. There are many reasons why someone may unknowingly not be able to opt out, such as if they don't know English or if they have a mental impediment (the technical term has slipped my mind). Just as in rape cases, you can't deem consent has been given just because they didn't explicitly say no, on this matter you can not assume somebody has opted in just because they haven't opted out. This is another case of the state going too far and thinking it has limitless power of its people. The states role is to govern, not to claim ownership over you and your body (whether dead or alive).

    I think I explained my opposition to this better in the Labour subforum, unfortunately I no longer have access to those posts to share with everybody :P
    Rights Shmights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Does that mean that the rich should also get better services than the poor because they contribute more? Or how about those who opt in go to the top of the list?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Paying taxes is a legal responsibility. This isn't about money, this about doing the right thing. If this makes it easier to do the right thing - then it should be welcomed.
    I myself wouldn't want to share my organs with someone who isn't willing to share themselves.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 4, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.