President Obama's newly confirmed regulatory czar defended the possibility of removing organs from terminally ill patients without their permission.
Cass Sunstein also has strongly pushed for the removal of organs from deceased individuals who did not explicitly consent to becoming organ donors.
In his 2008 book, "Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness," Sunstein and co-author Richard Thaler discussed multiple legal scenarios regarding organ donation. One possibility presented in the book, termed by Sunstein as "routine removal," posits that "the state owns the rights to body parts of people who are dead or in certain hopeless conditions, and it can remove their organs without asking anyone's permission."
The OP just ain't so. Sunstein in fact advocates for reforms to the organ donation system, but not for mandatory donation. WingNutDaily, once again, lifts a quote from its context to fabricate or exaggerate a claim.
I'm by no means an Obama supporter, but I do insist on being accurate and truthful in criticisms of him. Now, normally, this is the part where I list numerous references to counter the OP claim, but as a matter of history, folks who typically buy into stuff like the OP won't change their mind, no matter how objectively wrong they are. So why should I bother listing counterarguments?
It bears no fruit, and usually ends up in a urinating contest between a small handful of posters who will choose to disregard civility to make a point.
THerefore, I leave it to those of you who know better to research the matter for yourself.
He can't and he will not. He only knows how to engage ins Ad Hominems. Fact is there is no context in which the following quote can be excused or take any other way:
Yes I can, and yes I have.
But like I said, I won't bother posting such info, because people such as you are not interested in having a civil and polite discussion on the issue.
People such as you will simply dismiss any such post as not meeting with your prejudice on the topic.
That's incredibly funny, given that fact that your are a frequenter of the ad hominem on this board.
There is indeed, but like I said, you refuse to have an intelligent discussion about it.
Yes, and honestly, that's a topic that bothers me.
OTOH, if I'm dead, I don't need my organs, so I'm more than happy to have them removed for donation.
But I'm already a donor.
We discussed this before, and it's not unlike the issue of circumcision.
For years, hospitals automatically circumcised newborns, and no one cared.
Now, it's typically the policy for them not to do so, unless instructed.
No one had a problem with implied consent back then, so it's by no means a new issue.
I'm as of yet undecided on that issue, but am admittedly uncomfortable with the idea of implied consent in regards to organ donation.
But that's not the topic here. The claim in the OP is that Sunstein advocates the removal for donation of organs from living individuals.
That's by no means the case.
It's yet another example of WND engaging in yellow journalism.
kind of what I meant.
If in fact this is the authors own quite it has only one menaing. Taking organs form people who did not donate them, taking organs from people not yet dead. All without any permission. This is nothing short of evil.
"Then you acknowlege to buy what WND is selling in the OP, rather than discuss it to test its accuracy?"
How does "discuss" prove accuracy, why don't you prove it wrong with some context of the quote or that the quote does not exist. :thumbsup: Have you read the book?
I have read the chapter of the book wherein the aforementioned is discussed.
As for discussing it, I'd love to. But as a matter of history on this baord, and in topic like this, were I to list references to counter the OP claim, folks who typically buy into stuff like the OP won't change their mind, no matter how objectively wrong they are. They will refuse to engage in civil and respectful discussion, and instead choose to engage in ad hominems, toss the word "liberal" around a few times, and make infantile remarks about those who don't agree with them.
So why should I bother listing counterarguments? It bears no fruit, and usually ends up in a urinating contest between a small handful of posters who will choose to disregard civility to make a point.
Like I said before, I'm by no means an Obama supporter, but I do insist on being accurate and truthful in criticisms of him.
Again posting an article devoid of personal comment does not mean the poster agrees with any or part of it. Often there is a demand to know the poster's opinion right off the bat and it is unnecessary. But since the info cannot be refuted with supporting evidence only personal claims then the old adhominem is thrown out eg "I do not personally like the source so the info is false." Childish
You say it is not true but refuse to prove it because of how others react to you
(Might indicate something to you if you ponder the problem.) but offer to discuss it twice.
Again, how would discussing it prove anything.
Just prove it if you can and stop with the crying in your milk and crude language. :thumbsup: