Previous post

NY lawmaker to force New Yorkers to become organ donors?

Next post

NY lawmaker to force New Yorkers to become organ donors?

I received several tips about this in my inbox. I didn’t believe it could be as bad as it sounded, but yes, of course it is. A New York state assemblyman wants to end the long waiting lists for organ donations in New York by forcibly enrolling all New Yorkers as donors… unless they opt out.

Organ donation has become a vital way to save lives around the world, but a vast shortage of donors continues to mean people are losing their lives while on waiting lists.

But there is a unique proposal that could change all that.

New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky nearly lost his daughter, Willie, at 4 years old when she needed a kidney transplant, and again 10 years later when her second kidney failed.

“We have 10,000 New Yorkers on the list today waiting for organs. We import half the organs we transplant. It is an unacceptable failed system,” Brodsky said.

To fix that, Brodsky introduced a new bill in Albany that would enroll all New Yorkers as an organ donor, unless they actually opt out of organ donation. It would be the first law of its kind in the United States.

“Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy,” Brodsky said.

Currently one of the biggest obstacles to being a donor is while 9 out of 10 are favorable to it only 1 out of 10 is signed up to be a donor.

Not many people would argue that being an organ donor is necessarily a bad thing. That doesn’t mean that any of those people should be forcibly made an organ donor. Yes, this law apparently will let people opt out. But are all New Yorkers going to be notified first? Will they have a fair chance to opt out, or is this going to be done quietly, so that as few people as possible notice that it’s happened? And what happens if too many people opt out? Will they remove the ability to opt out?

This is just a horrible idea all around. There’s too many questions, and it seems like too much of a slippery slope. While I can understand Mr. Brodsky’s reasons for wanting to do this, it still is wrong. The state does not own our bodies. They belong to us. (I know, it seems like an obvious concept, but look who’s governing our country right now. Apparently it’s not all that obvious.) And if someone doesn’t want to be an organ donor — either for religious reasons, for personal reasons, or because they just don’t want to for no reason at all — then that is their right.

And there’s more to worry about with this bill. Just a few days ago, Peter Orszag confirmed that Obamacare would impose rationing. Sarah Palin’s warnings about the so-called death panels were true. How long will it take for these death panels to make decisions based on the waiting lists for organ donations? Let’s say you’re fighting cancer. It’s advanced, but there’s still a chance you could beat it with aggressive but expensive treatment. Now, be honest. Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility that your treatment would be denied so that your organs could be harvested?

I know, it sounds far-fetched. And this forced organ donation is only taking place in New York… for right now, anyways. What if Democrats in Congress think that this is just a great idea? Would you really put it past them? I know I wouldn’t. If they did, the aforementioned scenario is not that unbelievable. Slippery slopes exist, my friends. It may start off as a well-intentioned state program in New York, but who says that’s where it will end?

Richard Brodsky is currently running for New York Attorney General. He is a typical liberal Democrat who thinks that everything belongs to the government — apparently even your body. Politicians who think this way are dangerous, and hopefully, Richard Brodsky will find himself without a job come November.

Cross-posted at The Green Room and Stop the ACLU.

Written by

12 Comments
  • Kathy says:

    I couldn’t agree more. I set up a facebook cause – My organs are mine!. Please join so your voice will be heard. Here’s the link
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=112895542082061&v=app_2373072738&ref=ts#!/group.php?gid=112895542082061&v=wall&ref=ts

  • DavidL says:

    In New York State, the practice is that everything that is given to the state be it college tuition, road tolls or park entrance fees goes to Albany and doled out by Albany’s perceived political interests. Which means that if Albany takes you kidneys, they going to benefit not the public but rather the Empire state’s corrupt politicians.

    Hands off of may body.

  • Mat says:

    As a New Yorker, I say this to Assemblyman Brodsky: Go ahead and pass your bill. As soon as you do, I’ll just opt out. If you want to be a statist dick, then I’ll be an individual dick. Thanks!

  • jaed says:

    Would it be completely out of the realm of possibility that your treatment would be denied so that your organs could be harvested?

    Actually, yeah, because cancer is generally speaking a disqualifier for organ donation (unless it’s one of the few forms that don’t metatasize). A better example would be a stroke, severe spinal injury, something like that.

    And yes, I can see it happening – particularly if the prognosis involves permanent impairment. “This poor woman will probably never be able to live independently again *anyway*, and rehabilitation and social services and insurance payouts will cost an enormous amount, and… did you know the senator’s cousin’s son who needs a new kidney is a *perfect* tissue match? She wouldn’t want to live like this anyway!” The slope can be slid down in a number of directions from there.

  • Thomas says:

    If you feel so strongly about your organs, then opt out. Come on people, take a little personal responsibility and quit whining so much.

  • Juan F says:

    And the bad thing about this is…?

  • Mat says:

    Thomas,

    Um, I think personal responsibility was the whole point of the dissenters here. I don’t want to make it the government’s responsibility for our bodies. Way too many bad things can start with this act (organ harvesting, anyone?).

    Juan,

    The bad thing is that government will get to control of yet one more thing. If you want government running your entire life from cradle to grave, that’s your business. I wish otherwise. I don’t want the government to decide that it can take my organs regardless.

  • Juan F says:

    Mat,

    I understand your weariness of government intrusion into what we do with our bodies, so I’m sure you’re pro-choice, pro-equal marriage, etc.

    But I think to blog about this issue is to have GDS, or Government Derangement Syndrome.

  • Mat says:

    Juan,

    Actually,

    I’m a little sick and tired of people letting our government do a lot of things for us. The more the government intrudes, the less freedoms we have. In order for a democracy (in our case, a federal republic based on representation) to work, citizens have a duty to get involved whenever the government oversteps its bounds.

    Take a look at what’s happening to Britain. Just a little of this, just a little of that, and presto; 60 years later you have a country where the people don’t really have any say in what happens, no matter what their personal opinions are. You think it can’t happen in this country?

    Statists like Brodsky not only don’t mind the statement you actually made, they’re counting on it.

  • Thomas says:

    Matt,
    Um…it’s not the government’s responsibility, it’s yours. If you’re against donating your organs (which few people are) then opt out. It’s quite simple.

    “The bad thing is that government will get to control of yet one more thing. If you want government running your entire life from cradle to grave, that’s your business. I wish otherwise. I don’t want the government to decide that it can take my organs regardless.”

    Um, then opt out.

  • Mat says:

    Thomas,

    Um…I think you missed the point. The government shouldn’t be doing this to begin with. It burden shouldn’t be put on the citizen to do this. We do live (supposedly) in a representative republic, so the government shouldn’t be making unilateral decisions. I will opt out, but the choice should be whether I want to donate my organs, not whether I choose NOT to (i.e. coerced by the government). See the difference?

  • ZZMike says:

    The simple thing would be for everybody to opt out. Hold “Opt Out Party” meetings.

    “Overseas, 24 nations have it. Israel has it. Others have it. And it works without a lot of controversy,” Brodsky said. ”
    You’ve all probably hear this one before:

    Son, to Mom, asks is he can do something really stupid.
    Mom, to Son, says No.
    Son, to Mom, says but all my friends are doing it.
    Mom, to Son, says So if all your friends decide to jump off a cliff, would you do that?

    I’m also reminded of a favorite chant of some liberal feminists: “Keep Your Hands Off My Uterus!!!”

    Me, to Gov’t: “Keep your hands off my liver!!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead