In rebuttal of my criticism on the update of the uniform Anatomical Gift act.... Okay, I'll admit it. The prior criticism might have been wrong.

After reviewing the proposed changes in the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act and other papers on it, this one presents me with a quandary.

Yes, admittedly, I was harsh as heck on it. But don't construe that to mean that I don't support organ donations. It was the assertion that, absent notification of permission or refusal, someone might be able to intervene ahead of family members. That's what had my crank going.

As pointed out to me by a few people.... (Okay, maybe a dozen or so, including transplant recipients) taking away the rights of family members has never been the intent, and they pointed out where I could go look to confirm what they had to say. So I did.

And, I have to admit that, yes, maybe I jumped to conclusions on Senate Bill 197.

Don't take this to mean I bend easily. In fact, I'll often cling to my beliefs unto death no matter how many people disagree with me (just ask me about my opinions on the global warming myth or why we need to kill all the mountain lions). But, in the face of what I'm reading, it's hard to not acknowledge what they're trying to do.

Going back to the proposing organization, it appears that the intent (as noted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws) the intent of the 2006 revisions involve:
.... strengthen the power of the individual not to donate his or her parts by permitting the individual to sign a refusal that also bars others from making a gift of the individual's parts after the individual's death. Importantly, the 2006 UAGA strengthens prior language barring others from attempting to override an individual's decision to make or refuse an anatomical gift.
In fact, the document continues that the intent of the act is to address abuses on falsification of documents for financial gain by selling people parts.

Another (on-line) analysis also corroborates it by saying:

This revision retains the basic policy of the 1968 and 1987 anatomical gift acts by retaining and strengthening the “opt-in” system that honors the free choice of an individual to donate the individual’s organ (a process known in the organ transplant community as “first person consent” or “donor designation”). This revision also preserves the right of other persons to make an anatomical gift of a decedent’s organs if the decedent had not made a gift during life. And, it strengthens the right of an individual not to donate the individual’s organs by signing a refusal that also bars others from making a gift of the individual’s organs after the individual’s death.

Read that, plus much more here.

Given that it actually seems to try to strengthen the rights of the individual, it makes it tougher for a conservative to think of it as a bad thing. And actually, if it does that, it might be good. And I'm always for something that reinforces the rights of the individual.

In fact, it sounds like the Republican thing to do.


Anonymous said…
there is huge money to be made by the harvesters. they call it "handling fees" but for instance, Lions Eye Bank gets paid ten grand here in SD, just for calling the harvesters and saying "come get john doe, hes in pretty good shape."

wonder if these guys ever offer to share that dough with the greiving widow.

Popular posts from this blog

KSFY: Advance copy of abortion measure in hand

Breaking News: Frederick not in SDGOP Chair Race