Colo. legislator dropping organ-donor proposal

January 22, 2011

(AP) -- A Colorado bill that defaults all driver's license applicants as organ donors is unlikely to become law this year.

Democratic Sen. Lucia Guzman told Denver's KUSA-TV that she is dropping her proposal that the state change to a "presumed consent" system.

That system automatically classifies all applicants for driver's licenses and state ID cards as organ and tissue donors unless they opt out. Such donations are used in several European countries but have raised ethical concerns in the U.S.

The Colorado proposal was introduced last week and sparked fears and opposition from many.

Supporters say they will drop the proposal for now.

More information: Colorado Senate bill: http://goo.gl/MlKSw

shares

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Sugar industry withheld evidence of sucrose's health effects nearly 50 years ago

November 21, 2017
A U.S. sugar industry trade group appears to have pulled the plug on a study that was producing animal evidence linking sucrose to disease nearly 50 years ago, researchers argue in a paper publishing on November 21 in the ...

Female researchers pay more attention to sex and gender in medicine

November 7, 2017
When women participate in a medical research paper, that research is more likely to take into account the differences between the way men and women react to diseases and treatments, according to a new study by Stanford researchers.

Drug therapy from lethal bacteria could reduce kidney transplant rejection

August 3, 2017
An experimental treatment derived from a potentially deadly microorganism may provide lifesaving help for kidney transplant patients, according to an international study led by investigators at Cedars-Sinai.

Exploring the potential of human echolocation

June 25, 2017
People who are visually impaired will often use a cane to feel out their surroundings. With training and practice, people can learn to use the pitch, loudness and timbre of echoes from the cane or other sounds to navigate ...

Team eradicates hepatitis C in 10 patients following lifesaving transplants from infected donors

April 30, 2017
Ten patients at Penn Medicine have been cured of the Hepatitis C virus (HCV) following lifesaving kidney transplants from deceased donors who were infected with the disease. The findings point to new strategies for increasing ...

'bench to bedside to bench': Scientists call for closer basic-clinical collaborations

March 24, 2017
In the era of genome sequencing, it's time to update the old "bench-to-bedside" shorthand for how basic research discoveries inform clinical practice, researchers from The Jackson Laboratory (JAX), National Human Genome Research ...

11 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2011
Good.

It should never be presumed that anyone can steal parts from your body.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (6) Jan 22, 2011
Good.

It should never be presumed that anyone can steal parts from your body.

Next step is to end the presumption that the rest of your property, your money and wealth, belong to 'society'.
oldman2
5 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Jan 22, 2011
oldman2,
The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.


No, it really is not that simple. That same thinking really bugs me about blood donation where the donors are given a priority status (or their group, etc.). It permanently excludes people who, for whatever reason, cannot donate. For example, if you have viral hepatitis, cancer, etc., you cannot give blood nor will you be a candidate for organ donation. But you may need blood or organs.
dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Jan 22, 2011
ryggesogn2 ,
Next step is to end the presumption that the rest of your property, your money and wealth, belong to 'society'.

Excellent!

I take it you are in favor of eliminating the "death tax" as am I.
ryggesogn2
3.3 / 5 (7) Jan 22, 2011
"They assert that tax cuts are the equivalent of government funds, a conclusion possible only if one assumes that all personal income belongs by default to the state rather than to the individual who earned the money."
http:/biggovernment.com/abschaeffer/2010/11/04/all-of-your-money-belongs-to-the-state/
Justsayin
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 22, 2011
Imagine that.... a Democrat would assume that a small piece of your liberty is the States, it must come from their school of thought.
freethinking
1 / 5 (2) Jan 23, 2011
I am against that you are presumed to be an Organ Donor. In my opinion, if you sign that you want to be a donor, you take the risk of becoming one unnecesarily.

I'm not against living donors, or donation of parts from a person who's heart has stopped beating, but if a heart is beating, we have no right to remove it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (8) Jan 23, 2011
The solution is very simple, if you want to receive a donated organ you must have been a registered organ donar for at least one year prior to receiving a donated organ. No giving, no taking.
"Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again." luke6:38
No, it really is not that simple. That same thinking really bugs me about blood donation where the donors are given a priority status (or their group, etc.).
Well obviously dog the law would have to be tailored to accomodate those who can't donate through no fault of their own. And exclude smokers and others who have willfully damaged themselves and continue to do so, as they do in England.
dogbert
3 / 5 (4) Jan 23, 2011
TheGhostofOtto1923 ,
Well obviously dog the law would have to be tailored to accomodate those who can't donate through no fault of their own. And exclude smokers and others who have willfully damaged themselves and continue to do so, as they do in England.


And who will be the arbiter of who is deserving and who is not?

Did John Smith get hepatitis from sharing needles or did he get it from a blood transfusion or perhaps he got it while assisting a bleeding motorist who was in an accident. Will you decide whether he "deserves" medical care?

And yes, England does discriminate arbitrarily -- which is a good argument against government run health care.

I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of those who presume to judge others and determine their "worth".
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Jan 24, 2011
I never cease to be amazed at the arrogance of those who presume to judge others and determine their "worth".
It's unjustified hubris. Thus, it's not true arrogance (which is somehow justified), but born out of fear. Fear of worthlessness. Which they fight by declaring others to be worthless. Common stupidity. One root of fascism.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.