All your livers belong to us!

[InsaneApache]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o

You think this is far fetched? Think again.


A system of presumed consent will take effect on 1 December, where people will have to opt-out if they do not want their organs used after death.

Living donors who lack the mental capacity to express a view could also be deemed to consent to donation by experts acting in their best interests.

Health Minister Mark Drakeford said the "fundamental change" gave hope to over 200 people in Wales needing new organs.


Under the new law, people are invited to register their wish to donate their organs or not, with the assumption that they consent to donation if they do not register a view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-34443339

Mengele would be proud.

[Greyblades]

What, no Repo! The Genetic Opera clips?

[rory_20_uk]

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OH MY GOD!!! Doing more transplants to people!!?!?!

Can't we just leave them to die??!!!!

~:smoking:

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

[Idaho]

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?
:laugh4:

Honestly. What kind of discussion can you possibly be trying to develop with that statement?

[Idaho]

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

The loss aversion of old age/right wingers encapsulated!

[Crandar]

Honestly, I don't see the problem.

[rvg]

The slippery slope is slippery.

[rory_20_uk]

The slippery slope is slippery.

This is a non-argument - almost everything we do could be claimed to be on a slippery slope: driving fast means people are more likely to die. Yet we don't state that we should not drive any cars to be safe.

Idaho, are all left wingers signed up to have their organs removed for the Greater Good?

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

...are we reading the same article? All donations are stated to be only post-Morten.

[Beskar]

Would you like to explain to us how harvesting the organs of the mentally handicapped while they're alive is ok?

Corrections:
1) it is not the mentally handicapped. It is not mentally capable, there is a very big difference. Think vegetative-state.
2) it is based on preferences ie:living-will in consultation with friends and family and a range professions including an independent assigned by the state to 'act in the persons behalf' which most often or not, always take the 'safe approach' thus will rule to opt-out.
3) This is based on when the client is dead, not when they are alive.

Anyway, long story short, we have a big organ crisis and you don't need them when dead. You can chose to opt out and most people don't actually mind.

[Gilrandir]

Well my liver belongs to me, not the state!

Take steps to make them disregard YOUR liver.

[Crandar]

Why assuming that the deseased would like to have his organs donated is more immoral than assuming that he wouldn't.
In my opinion, it's the same thing, but the former has the extra advantage of actually allowing some people to live a bit more.

[Gilrandir]

Why assuming that the deseased would like to have his organs donated is more immoral than assuming that he wouldn't.


Assuming he would (and having a law to prove that) may cause some people to "produce" the deceased rather than to wait for one with suitable organs to die.

[Greyblades]

There's no monetary incentive to do so beyond the already present black market. Besides that, unless they were on the top of the donor list anyone in need who tried that would have to kill a mountain of people to get a victim's organs put in them by a legal establishment.

[Crandar]

Assuming he would (and having a law to prove that) may cause some people to "produce" the deceased rather than to wait for one with suitable organs to die.
I really doubt that, Girlandir, because murdering someone and making sure that the doctors have access to his organs fast enough doesn't look very practical, because thanks to the law there wouldn't be such a worrying lack of available organs, because by your logic, there is currently the possibility that a few desperate patients will start murdering donators and because the authorities would not be very willing to reward the the murderous patient with his victim's organs.

[Gilrandir]

My assumption refers to rich people who are in need of a transplantation and can afford to hire a person who will cause a prospective donor to die as if naturally. Something like that worked with rich childless couples (most of them foreigners) who struck a deal with doctors and bought a baby while his mother was announced that the baby had died in labor.

Although it happened in Ukraine, perhaps it is not so easy to do in Europe.

[Greyblades]

You do know that sort of thing happens anyway, without this new law?

[Crandar]

My assumption refers to rich people who are in need of a transplantation and can afford to hire a person who will cause a prospective donor to die as if naturally.
Or alternatively, the rich patients are already paying some kidnappers to find them the necessary organs.

[Gilrandir]

You do know that sort of thing happens anyway, without this new law?

But now it's closer to being legal.

[Greyblades]

...No its not. Murder is no closer to being legalized.

[Husar]

They are going to take the livers of the rich while they are still alive and give them to the poor!

It's typical Mengele-style class-warfare, I agree, says so right in the text if you can't read!!!!!!!11111

Or maybe it's infringing of the human rights of the dead in order to keep other undeserving bastards like little children or so alive, I can't decide what makes me more angry!!!!1111

I'm also furious that my money won't stay in my bank account after I die, what if I ever need it again?????

[drone]

Take steps to make them disregard YOUR liver.

This. Nobody is going to want my liver when I'm through with it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

:laugh4:

Honestly. What kind of discussion can you possibly be trying to develop with that statement?

"Living donors who lack the mental capacity to express a view could also be deemed to consent to donation by experts acting in their best interests."

You see no problem with this?

[Greyblades]

Not unless unless there's a clause i didnt see saying the state will start pulling the plugs on the comatose or something. Seriously, it's an opt out donor program, not a real life Repomen.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not unless unless there's a clause i didnt see saying the state will start pulling the plugs on the comatose or something. Seriously, it's an opt out donor program, not a real life Repomen.

That's exactly what the quote says - it boils down to this - someone who is not compus mentus can be made to give their organs to someone else.

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.

Maybe the BBC is exaggerating, or just wrong, but the implication is very clear.

We should never create a law which relies on the goodwill of society to prevent abuse.

[Beskar]

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.

It doesn't mean this at all. As I posted in the above:
Corrections:
1) it is not the mentally handicapped. It is not mentally capable, there is a very big difference. Think vegetative-state and discussing end of life.
2) it is based on preferences ie:living-will in consultation with friends and family and a range professions including an independent assigned by the state to 'act in the persons behalf' which most often or not, always take the 'safe approach' thus will rule to opt-out.
3) This is based on when the client is dead, not when they are alive.

[Greyblades]

That's exactly what the quote says - it boils down to this - someone who is not compus mentus can be made to give their organs to someone else.

So, for example, a retarded child could be made to donate a Kidney to their parent - or a comatose patient might donate part of their liver.
After death. It says it right in the first paragraph, they aren't going to euthanise the incapable for organs.

[Husar]

We already recycle used paper, used glass, used cellphones, so why not used humans?

It's your soul that goes to heaven, not your body, you get a new one there.

So if the parts are not used to help other humans they will be eaten by flames or by critters, how especially the latter makes anyone feel more comfortable is beyond me.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It doesn't mean this at all. As I posted in the above:
Corrections:
1) it is not the mentally handicapped. It is not mentally capable, there is a very big difference. Think vegetative-state and discussing end of life.
2) it is based on preferences ie:living-will in consultation with friends and family and a range professions including an independent assigned by the state to 'act in the persons behalf' which most often or not, always take the 'safe approach' thus will rule to opt-out.
3) This is based on when the client is dead, not when they are alive.

Really?

If that's the case why mention it at all?

The new law allows them to take everyone's organs once they die unless they opt out so what matter the incapable? We're all incapable once dead.

The term "living doner" is understood to mean someone donating whilst alive - and that they will remain so after donating - so what the BBC has said is that the living but incapable, which does not just mean the comatose, may donate without giving their consent if it is deemed to be in their interests.

I don't know where you get the idea that this is only applicable once they die because that isn't what the article says.

is the legislation published yet?

[Montmorency]

PVC, it's rather simple: the "mentally-incapable" will not be given an opt-out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

PVC, it's rather simple: the "mentally-incapable" will not be given an opt-out.

Then why use the term "living doner"?

That's a technical term: https://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/about-donation/living-donation/

[Montmorency]

As it turns out, the BBC text is at-best misleading and I was entirely wrong.

Bill text (http://gov.wales/docs/dhss/consultation/120618billen.pdf):


8 Activities involving material from adults who lack capacity to consent
(1) This section applies where—
(a) a transplantation activity within sections 3(2)(d) (storage of relevant material
which has come from a human body) or 3(2)(e) (use of such relevant material)
involves relevant material from the body of a person (“P”) who—
(i) is an adult, and
(ii) lacks capacity to consent to the activity, and
(b) no decision of P’s to consent, or not to consent, to the activity is in force.
(2) P’s consent to the activity is to be deemed if the activity is done in circumstances of a kind
specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 6 of the
Human Tissue Act 2004.


Explanatory Notes (http://gov.wales/docs/dhss/consultation/120618memoen.pdf):


36. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 confirms that a person must be assumed to
have capacity to make decisions unless it is established otherwise. It is recognised
that people may have the mental capacity to make decisions about some aspects of
their lives but not others; that some people may never have the mental capacity to
make that decision; that some may lose their mental capacity, and for others mental
capacity may fluctuate.
37. The Bill does not alter the current ability of any person to express, during their
lifetime, a wish to donate their organs or not to donate. People will be able to use the
new register for Wales to express a wish. In doing so, and as happens now, mental
capacity will not be questioned.
38. Every effort should be made to facilitate those lacking capacity to understand
the new law and to make a decision in the light of it. This emphasis on facilitation
during a person’s lifetime will form part of our communications programme. At the
time of death, if organ donation is a possibility, then in a similar situation to that
described for children and young people, the deceased’s wishes will take
precedence and next of kin will be sensitively encouraged to accept their decision.
Where a person who lacked capacity had not expressed a wish to donate or not to
donate, their consent will not be deemed to be given since, if there is doubt as to
whether they had capacity with regard to understanding the law, this could make
such consent invalid. In these cases, the person in a qualifying relationship or an
appointed representative will be asked to make the decision about organ donation.

[Papewaio]

So does this bill allow the most physically sick to steal organs from the most mentally ill?

[Montmorency]

Per the quoted Paragraph 38: If someone "lacking capacity" specifies consent or lack-thereof, this decision becomes binding. If there is no specification either way upon death, then legal guardians and health professionals make the decision.

This is basically the softest "presumed-consent" transplantation legislation in the world, quit the hand-wringing.

[Gilrandir]

After death. It says it right in the first paragraph, they aren't going to euthanise the incapable for organs.

Death is a tricky thing and taking the organs out raises ethical problems.

As far as I know you gotta be very quick with cutting out the organs from a dead body before they are inutile. It means you can't wait long enough to make sure the dead IS dead. And relatives are still sitting in the corridor and hoping for the doctors to kickstart the injured man's heart or something. And then the doctor comes out and says: "You know, we did all we could but he didn't make it. Now can we have his gall bladder and a kidney - they look so temptingly healthy?" Do you expect the relatives who are almost out of their mind for grief to take such decisions, sign some papers and hear something like: "You can't say good-bye to your father. Right know we are busy with taking his lung out" or "Could you be a little quicker with your good-byes, his heart is getting colder, you know" or "The dismemberment will take some time, so I'm afraid you can have the body no sooner than tomorrow. And do we have to stitch it together or you will take it as it is - it will be dust to dust all the same."

[Greyblades]

What motivation would those doctors have to do so?

[Gilrandir]

What motivation would those doctors have to do so?

They have to notify a patient when a suitable donor is around and be very quick to get the organs before they are wasted.

[Greyblades]

Hrm, I think I misread your post for "doctors would let patients die for organs".

Presumably they would do what they do now, allow them a minute or two to mourn before wheeling the body to the morgue. It's not as if before this the NHS lets the dead rot in their beds for the sake of the bereaved.

[Gilrandir]

Presumably they would do what they do now, allow them a minute or two to mourn before wheeling the body to the morgue.

When you are supposed to take something out of the body, minutes are too precious to waste. So my picture of mourning relatives and a doctor patting their shoulder from behind or impatiently tapping his foot a yard away seems credible.

[Greyblades]

My picture is a doctor patiently waiting until the surgeon to finish preparing for surgery on short notice before trying to retrieve the body.

But it's rather a moot point as the emotional distress is unlikely to be anywhere near as significant as the lives saved. Besides getting the body out of the reach of an irrational relative is unlikely to get any easier whether or not they have a minute.

[Montmorency]

Gil, I don't get your complaint. Cardiac death is the baseline for organ removal.

That's why there are so few organs available for transplant - as you say, time is of the essence, so an individual typically needs to die within the hospital.

These are not acute cases - no relatives are waiting for any hearts to be jumpstarted, which is almost never done in any cases anyway.

[Greyblades]

I think Gil is imagining the usual Hollywood scene of a man dying in a hospital bed surrounded by grieving relatives, and he predicts they'd probably react badly if the hospital confiscates the body immediately after death.

[Gilrandir]

I think Gil is imagining the usual Hollywood scene of a man dying in a hospital bed surrounded by grieving relatives, and he predicts they'd probably react badly if the hospital confiscates the body immediately after death.

I don't think it's entirely Hollywood picture. I've seen something like that, I can assure you that donating the body of the one they love (especially if this is not an old person who has been on the deathbed for quite a time so his family are kind of ready for the end to come but a young man whose death (e.g. in a carcrash) was a shock) to save someone else's life is the last thing the relatives are thinking about at the moment and they really can be distressed (to put it mildly) if there is a surgeon "whetting his scalpel" waiting for his turn to come.

[Montmorency]

You still don't seem to understand how the process works fundamentally.

You don't just go ahead and remove one or more organs from a cadaver until:

1. Full medical history has been obtained and reviewed.
2. The health of each organ has been assessed on the spot.
3. The wait-list for organ-transplant is cross-referenced to determine the best match.

With the image you have in mind, haven't you ever wondered how there isn't a massive glut in spare organs?

Even without the issue of consent, it's an extremely-complicated process. You might also notice that the black-market trade in organs is not actually all that big? Why is this? Because regardless of the conditions under which the organs are collected, without extensive consultation over the medical histories and innate biomarkers of the donor and recipient, the risk of transplant failure and host death is dramatically higher - no matter how much money you have.

[Beskar]

Gilrandir, you definitely have an over-active imagination or you lived in one of the most morally depraved places in the world if you ever think healthcare service is like that.

[I of the Storm]

Pragmatic approach, I like it.

I can see that other people with ... a firm set of beliefs may have problems with it though.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, so from reading the bill it appears that those resident in Wales will be assumed to have given their consent to their bodies being used for transplant after death unless they explicitly express a reservation before death or a relative or appointed agent expresses their wishes after death.

In the case of the mentally incapable, which means anyone not deemed able to understand the law, their consent will be assumed unless (again) a relative comes forward to express a differing view.

So, seems to me, mental patients and the retarded who lack capacity can be assumed to be doners if they have no close family. Whether it actually works like that or not in practice we shall have to see but it seems to me it would be better to assume that all those without capacity do NOT give their consent, that would be more humane, rather than potentially harvesting the lonely and handicapped for their organs - which is what COULD happen.

[I of the Storm]

...

So, seems to me, mental patients and the retarded who lack capacity can be assumed to be doners if they have no close family. Whether it actually works like that or not in practice we shall have to see but it seems to me it would be better to assume that all those without capacity do NOT give their consent, that would be more humane, rather than potentially harvesting the lonely and handicapped for their organs - which is what COULD happen.

That would be the less controversial stance indeed.

[Beskar]

Yeah, I think if they actually tried to make it so they could harvest the vulnerable, they would get lynched.

Only slippery slope of "what COULD happen" I would like to see is that those who opt-out also opt-out of receiving organ transplants. There is something very hypocritical and disturbing about opt-ing out but yet still wanting to receive.

Then again, I am someone who opted-in and is an organ donor. So this law doesn't actually change anything for me practically.

[Greyblades]

I don't think those who are too handicapped to be mentally capable of applying for the opt out program will be too bothered what happens to their body after death.

[Gilrandir]

You still don't seem to understand how the process works fundamentally.

You don't just go ahead and remove one or more organs from a cadaver until:

1. Full medical history has been obtained and reviewed.
2. The health of each organ has been assessed on the spot.
3. The wait-list for organ-transplant is cross-referenced to determine the best match.


It doesn't make the picture I painted invalid. Notwithstanding all the procedures you have mentioned, there is one thing that stands: THE DOCTORS GOTTA BE QUICK if they want to get an eligible organ fit for further use. The speed neccessitates disregarding the feelings of the mourners as much as it can be helped.



With the image you have in mind, haven't you ever wondered how there isn't a massive glut in spare organs?



If spare organs were something like cereals whose shelf life and preservation conditions allowed them to be bought almost anywhere at any time I would be the one to wonder why there is an excess of demand over supply. But this is a different story, so I can offer several reasons:
1. Technical problems - not all hospitals (not even in Western countries, I'm afraid, to say nothing of the Third world) have staff and equipment to get things cut out, preserved/delivered and "installed" properly.
2. Delivery problems - organs "get unfit" before a proper care can be taken of them (the hospital is too far, too long time before the body is delivered to the hospital, there is a hiatus in the delivery process (like the police needs to document everything on the crime scene, etc)).
3. Attitude problems - not many people (or their relatives) are willing to donate their organs - for various reasons.

When you get an organ available have to solve all these problems asap, which is not that simple.


Gilrandir, you definitely have an over-active imagination or you lived in one of the most morally depraved places in the world if you ever think healthcare service is like that.

It is both. You evidently know very little of healthcare service in Ukraine.

[Montmorency]

It doesn't make the picture I painted invalid. Notwithstanding all the procedures you have mentioned, there is one thing that stands: THE DOCTORS GOTTA BE QUICK if they want to get an eligible organ fit for further use. The speed neccessitates disregarding the feelings of the mourners as much as it can be helped.

But then there's no difference either way.


You evidently know very little of healthcare service in Ukraine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft_in_Kosovo :eyebrows:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, I think if they actually tried to make it so they could harvest the vulnerable, they would get lynched.

Really? The voice of Young Britain:


I don't think those who are too handicapped to be mentally capable of applying for the opt out program will be too bothered what happens to their body after death.



Only slippery slope of "what COULD happen" I would like to see is that those who opt-out also opt-out of receiving organ transplants. There is something very hypocritical and disturbing about opt-ing out but yet still wanting to receive.

Then again, I am someone who opted-in and is an organ donor. So this law doesn't actually change anything for me practically.

Not, no, no.

A decision you make at age 20 when you're healthy and irresponsible should not leave you off the transplant list at age 40 when you have a wife and kids. Not to mention, this is yet another example of people wanting doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath and allow someone to die for political reasons.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Talk to a lawyer before you enter a coma and you won't have this problem.

[Beskar]

Not, no, no.

A decision you make at age 20 when you're healthy and irresponsible should not leave you off the transplant list at age 40 when you have a wife and kids. Not to mention, this is yet another example of people wanting doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath and allow someone to die for political reasons.

Knowingly deciding to opt-out of organ transplantation is pretty self-explanatory. It is a conscious decision being made, no one would do it for giggles. Besides, you can always realise your mistake and opt back in though I don't think they would opt-out originally anyway for that reason, if anything, it is religious reasons and they reject receiving organs because of that too anyway. Example: Jehovah's Witnesses.

Cannot cherry pick the best parts, you either buy the whole cake or have none of it.

[Montmorency]

A decision you make at age 20 when you're healthy and irresponsible should not leave you off the transplant list at age 40 when you have a wife and kids. Not to mention, this is yet another example of people wanting doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath and allow someone to die for political reasons.

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but physicians and surgeons regularly deny individuals transplants on the basis of irresponsibility and uncooperativeness.

[rory_20_uk]

Perhaps you are not aware of this, but physicians and surgeons regularly deny individuals transplants on the basis of irresponsibility and uncooperativeness.

Given how rare organs currently are it makes perfect sense - and was also the case when dialysis was first an option.

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

I don't think those who are too handicapped to be mentally capable of applying for the opt out program will be too bothered what happens to their body after death.

Those who are most vulnerable should be the best protected. Otherwise it is very easy for less then scrupulous people to legitimately harvest organs of the weakest members of our community.

Don't rely on people's morals where a law should be. Look up about organ harvesting in India and China before you think that rich won't take advantage of the weak.

[Greyblades]

Those who are most vulnerable should be the best protected. Otherwise it is very easy for less then scrupulous people to legitimately harvest organs of the weakest members of our community.

Don't rely on people's morals where a law should be. Look up about organ harvesting in India and China before you think that rich won't take advantage of the weak.

No I rely on how unnecessary it is, you cant make money off the new laws, the donor list makes obtaining specific organs essentially impossible and the new influx will provide enough organs to make waiting a viable and much easier option. There's no real point in killing the vulnerable and I do have faith that people wont do evil crap without incentive.

[Beskar]

My step-brother is terminal because of lack of kidneys on the transplant market. He experienced chronic kidney failure at 14, and he waited over 20 years to the point his body is scarred from the repeated operations and prolonged trauma of going through artificial means which makes him unsuitable for further transplants, and has been on 'deaths door', for 5 years now, luckily still alive, due to wanting to force every once of life from his body continuing with painful measures.

I guess some people think organs magically appear out of no where like they do in Casualty.

[Papewaio]

For a person of sound mind organ donor should be automatic unless one objects to it. Then if they object they should be last on the list for receiving an organ transplant.

For a person who isn't of sound mind/child then it should be not allowed unless consent is given by their guardians.

[Gilrandir]

For a person of sound mind organ donor should be automatic unless one objects to it. Then if they object they should be last on the list for receiving an organ transplant.

For a person who isn't of sound mind/child then it should be not allowed unless consent is given by their guardians.

For a person of sound mind gay marriages make no sense.

Just an example to show that when one's values get muddily entwined with one's views on how the world works he starts calling everyone who doesn't agree with him an insane idiot.

[Beskar]

For a person of sound mind gay marriages make no sense.

Nope, it makes perfect sense.

Two consensual adults love each other. They want to have a partnership and live together.

If you go "But they don't have to marry" try to remember why you married your wife. Clearly you didn't need to marry her either, but you did and wanted to very much.

[Papewaio]

For a person of sound mind gay marriages make no sense.

Just an example to show that when one's values get muddily entwined with one's views on how the world works he starts calling everyone who doesn't agree with him an insane idiot.

That statement makes no sense.

Marriage hasn't always been heterosexual until Christianity stomped it out of regions it took over.

[Gilrandir]

Nope, it makes perfect sense.

Two consensual adults love each other. They want to have a partnership and live together.

If you go "But they don't have to marry" try to remember why you married your wife. Clearly you didn't need to marry her either, but you did and wanted to very much.

One of the reasons was having (our own) children. This one is never an issue with gay couples.


That statement makes no sense.

Marriage hasn't always been heterosexual until Christianity stomped it out of regions it took over.

Like I warned, my statement was meant to show that labeling people "insane" for having a different point of view makes no sense either.

[Papewaio]

I warned, my statement was meant to show that labeling people "insane" for having a different point of view makes no sense either.

Show in my quote that I was labeling someone insane?;

"For a person who isn't of sound mind/child then it should be not allowed unless consent is given by their guardians."

Someone who is a child has a guardian (normally parents).

Having a sound mind is a legal/medical term. For instance someone who does not have the mental capacity to look after themselves any longer such as full blown dementia patients. It is not a term used lightly and not one I decide based on my non professional opinion nor on the lifestyle or opinions of the person. It is a threshold in which society has decided an adult needs another adult to act as a sort of guardian i.e. Power of attorney if you are incapacitated.

[Gilrandir]

Show in my quote that I was labeling someone insane?;

"For a person who isn't of sound mind/child then it should be not allowed unless consent is given by their guardians."

Someone who is a child has a guardian (normally parents).

Having a sound mind is a legal/medical term. For instance someone who does not have the mental capacity to look after themselves any longer such as full blown dementia patients. It is not a term used lightly and not one I decide based on my non professional opinion nor on the lifestyle or opinions of the person. It is a threshold in which society has decided an adult needs another adult to act as a sort of guardian i.e. Power of attorney if you are incapacitated.

It doesn't make what you said any better. Taking from anyone anything without asking his consent and presuming he has given it by default is.... theft.

[Husar]

It doesn't make what you said any better. Taking from anyone anything without asking his consent and presuming he has given it by default is.... theft.

So if you ate a banana and your housemaid came and took away the banana peel to compost it and grow plants in her garden, would you fire her for theft?

The banana peel usually becomes useless to you once you have eaten the banana, similarly your organs become useless to you once your have lived your life. In both cases they can however be used to support other life, so where exactly is the moral outrage when someone actually does that? Should we also ban recycling in general? Is it morally wrong or theft if someone picks up your used beer bottles, melts them and makes new bottles out of them? Is it wrong to reuse rare earths and copper from old electronics because the property you threw into the trash is still your property? When your soul dumps your body on this mortal coil and flies away to greener pastures on a farm upstate, can it still claim the body as its property? And how would your soul challenge this in a court? Through a medium? DO YOU SEE THE SLIPPERY SLOPE IN YOUR ARGUMENT???????ßßßßß