[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Family Removes Alexa Devices After a Stranger in Another Town Heard Everything They Were Saying

Tariffs Aren't Saving Steel Towns

Atlanta Suburb Brags About Fines for Chipped Paint and Incorrectly Stacked Wood

NFL’s National Anthem Policy Exposes Free Speech Hypocrisy of Right, Left, and Trump

Locking guns won't do anything to save lives BY JOHN LOTT, JR.,

KIM JONG UN CAVES TO TRUMP!! [Kim wants a summit "at any time"]

Trump to cut foreign aid for home countries of illegal immigrants

The Great German Meltdown by Victor Davis Hanson

Pharmaceutical Murder – Mass Shootings Caused by Drugs!

The plot against Donald Trump

Haspel Is Not the Problem. The CIA Is the Problem.

This Week's Corrupt Cops Stories

SWAT Team Raids WRONG House, Nearly Kills Dad, Injures 6-year-old Boy With Flash Grenade

Ron Paul: Republicans, Democrats Teaming Up for Federal Gun Confiscation Bill

NFL Players WILL Respect the Flag's Authoritah, Says Commissioner

Trump lawyer 'paid by Ukraine' to arrange White House talks

FBI Agent at Mike Flynn Interrogation Is Ready to Testify Against McCabe, Strzok and Comey!

96-Year-Old WWII Vet in a Wheelchair, Groped & Molested by TSA—For "Freedom"

This Is Why Evangelical Christians Love Israel

St. Louis Town Agrees to Stop Bankrolling Itself by Fining Its Residents into the Poorhouse

A Nation of Narcs

Surveillance Target Sam Clovis Discusses His Contacts With FBI/CIA Intelligence Agent Stefan Halper

Stormy Daniels' Lawyer Ordered To Pay $10 Million Fine In Legal Feud

New Poll Shows GOP Now Leads In 2018 Generic Ballot

Portsmouth man added "copyright" and his screen name to his child porn, feds say

Can a pope change moral truth?

The appointment of Robert Mueller violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution... ·

Investigators Admit Victims in Texas Shooting Could’ve Been Killed by Police Fire

Innocent Man Detained, Assaulted by Cops Because He Had ‘Vegetation’ on His Window

La Jolla hardware store forced to stop giving away free popcorn

Pompeo to Iran: Get ready for "strongest sanctions in history"

Germany’s military is dysfunctional and they have no plans to fix it

ISIS Militants Leave Damascus Under Evacuation Deal As Assad Takes Full Control Of Capital

At the royal wedding, why was the heretic allowed to give the homily?

Dershowitz on Russia Probe: 'They’re All Longterm Reps Who Hated Trump!'

Here's How Much The Federal Government Paid Alleged Trump Campaign 'Spy' In 2016

Don't mess with bears

How Trump Can Dismantle Obamacare Without Congress

Worker Co-Ops Are Wildly Successful But U.S. Media Ignores them

Why Socrates Hated Democracy

Europe may be realizing America isn’t their sugar daddy or punching bag

Has China succumbed to the art of the deal?

John Bolton: We May Punish Europe If They Don’t Pull Out Of Iran Deal Too

Stop Calling the GOP the Party of Small Government

FEDS DROP BOMBSHELL: Comey & Lynch Colluded Entrap, Wiretap Trump

Bad news for green energy lovers: US oil & gas are booming

Poles Blasting EU for Gay Flag

Santa Fe High School shooting: Suspect identified as Dimitrios Pagourtzis

As The Church Slept, Satan Crept In And The Masses Embraced The Doctrines Of Demons

Geoengineering Is ‘Being Used As A Weapon; An All-Out Assault Against Life’


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

How To
See other How To Articles

Title: Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
Source: CNS
URL Source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/53534
Published: Sep 5, 2009
Author: Matt Cover
Post Date: 2009-09-05 09:46:24 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 6740
Comments: 12

Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.

Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.

“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.

This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”

They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”

“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.

The difference between explicit and presumed consent is that under presumed consent, many more people “choose” to be organ donors. Sunstein and Thaler noted that in a 2003 study only 42 percent of people actively chose to be organ donors, while only 18 percent actively opted out when their consent was presumed.

In cases where the deceased’s wishes are unclear, Sunstein and Thaler argued that a “presumed consent” system would make it easier for doctors to convince families to donate their loved one’s organs.

Citing a 2006 study, Thaler and Sunstein wrote: “The next of kin can be approached quite differently when the decedent’s silence is presumed to indicate a decision to donate rather than when it is presumed to indicate a decision not to donate. This shift may make it easier for the family to accept organ donation.”

The problem of the deceased’s family is only one issue, Sunstein and Thaler said, admitting that turning the idea of choice on its head will invariably run into major political problems, but these are problems they say the government can solve through a system of “mandated choice.”

“Another [problem] is that it is a hard sell politically,” wrote Sunstein and Thaler. “More than a few people object to the idea of ‘presuming’ anything when it comes to such a sensitive matter. For these reasons we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice.”

Mandated choice is a process where government forces you to make a decision – in this case, whether to opt out of being an organ donor to get something you need, such as a driver’s license.

“With mandated choice, renewal of your driver’s license would be accompanied by a requirement that you check a box stating your organ donation preferences,” the authors stated. “Your application would not be accepted unless you had checked one of the boxes.”

To ensure that people’s decisions align with the government policy of more organ donors, Sunstein and Thaler counseled that governments should follow the state of Illinois’ example and try to influence people by making organ donation seem popular.

“First, the state stresses the importance of the overall problem (97,000 people [in Illinois] on the waiting list and then brings the problem home, literally (4,700 in Illinois),” they wrote.

“Second, social norms are directly brought into play in a way that build on the power of social influences [peer pressure]: ‘87 percent of adults in Illinois feel that registering as an organ donor is the right thing to do’ and ’60 percent of adults in Illinois are registered,’” they added.

Sunstein and Thaler reminded policymakers that people will generally do what they think others are doing and what they believe others think is right. These presumptions, which almost everyone has, act as powerful factors as policymakers seek to design choices.

“Recall that people like to do what most people think is right to do; recall too that people like to do what most people actually do,” they wrote. “The state is enlisting existing norms in the direction of lifestyle choices.”

Thaler and Sunstein believed that this and other policies are necessary because people don’t really make the best decisions.

“The false assumption is that almost all people, almost all of the time, make choices that are in their best interest or at the very least are better than the choices that would be made [for them] by someone else,” they said.

This means that government “incentives and nudges” should replace “requirements and bans,” they argued.

Neither Sunstein nor Thaler currently are commenting on their book, a spokesman for the publisher, Penguin Group, told CNSNews.com.

In a question-and-answer section on the Amazon.com Web site, Thaler and Sunstein answered a few questions about their book.

When asked what the title “Nudge” means and why people need to be nudged, the authors stated: “By a nudge we mean anything that influences our choices. A school cafeteria might try to nudge kids toward good diets by putting the healthiest foods at front.

“We think that it's time for institutions, including government, to become much more user-friendly by enlisting the science of choice to make life easier for people and by gently nudging them in directions that will make their lives better,” they wrote.

“…The human brain is amazing, but it evolved for specific purposes, such as avoiding predators and finding food,” said Thaler and Sunstein. “Those purposes do not include choosing good credit card plans, reducing harmful pollution, avoiding fatty foods, and planning for a decade or so from now. Fortunately, a few nudges can help a lot. …”


Poster Comment:

Sicko.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.

China has this policy. I'd expect nothing less from a pisswad like this obamunist Sunshade guy.

e_type_jag  posted on  2009-12-05   23:33:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: e_type_jag (#1)

Sounds like we have some agreement.

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-12-06   9:02:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: A K A Stone (#0)

Sicko is right, this WH pimp has surrounded himself with the lowest, sickest bunch of garbage thugs I have ever seen. If ever we need some trash thrown out, now is the time before it's too late.

Murron  posted on  2009-12-06   9:11:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#0)

The headline of this article and the premise of the article itself are lies and gross misrepresentations of the referenced author's point. The article clearly states that Thaler and Sunstein wrote "we think that the best choice architecture for organ donations is mandated choice." However, the headline reads "Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent".

The former is clearly an opinion (which people are presumably still allowed to have, even if they work in the Obama Administration) and not the current law, while the latter is disingenuous political spin which appears to stem from the headline writer's apparently not liking black people very much.

With the crying need that exists for transplantable organs, the life this idea could save could be your own, an idea that I assume even rock-ribbed social conservatives could get behind.

In the interest of sheer honesty, please correct the headline to read "Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Requiring That People Decide Whether Their Organs Should Be Removed Upon Their Death."

What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina? Only some of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded.

Racism_Boot  posted on  2009-12-06   11:18:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Racism_Boot (#4)

In the interest of sheer honesty, please correct the headline to read "Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Requiring That People Decide Whether Their Organs Should Be Removed Upon Their Death."

The headline is accurate.

A question for you though.

From where in the article do you deduce that the author hates black people?

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-12-06   11:32:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)

The headline is accurate.

Nope, not even close. The headline is pure propaganda and spin, and contains no truth whatsoever.

And where do YOU deduce that I said that the author "hated black people"? What I actually said is that there is evidence that he apparently doesn't like them very much, a hypothesis borne out by the fact that he repeatedly attacks and assigns ulterior motives to Barack Obama personally in the column for an arguably controversial view held by one of his advisors. Just because Larry Craig had an "R" next to his name doesn't mean that I take the wide stance of accusing George W. Bush of trolling for gay sex in airport restrooms.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina? Only some of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded.

Racism_Boot  posted on  2009-12-06   11:42:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: A K A Stone (#5)

By the by, you're running a great site here. I would have already been banned by stick-up-the-ass Sally over at Flibbertygibbetpost for daring to challenge her ADL-mandated "conventional wisdom" or RimJob at FreakRepublic for not smooching Bush's ass even after he called Bush a "cokehead". Kudos, sir or madam.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina? Only some of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded.

Racism_Boot  posted on  2009-12-06   11:53:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Racism_Boot (#6)

Obama appointed this freak. Larry wasn't appointed by Bush. He was elected by the people of his state.

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-12-06   12:05:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Racism_Boot (#7) (Edited)

I disagree with your view on this thread. But you are in no danger of being banned or being told what to post or think.

Have a good time here. Welcome if I haven't already welcomed you.

Oh...and it is Sir.

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-12-06   12:07:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: A K A Stone (#8)

Obama appointed this freak. Larry wasn't appointed by Bush. He was elected by the people of his state.

I'll try to remember that Presidents are always bound by and agree with the opinions of their advisors and not influential people within their own party the next time that somebody trashes Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi here.

As for holding Presidents accountable for everything their advisors say, who exactly held George W. Bush accountable for the opinion of his advisor John Yoo who once publicly argued that there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including the crushing of said child’s testicles?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11488.htm

Selective outrage is just so darned selective.

What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina? Only some of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded.

Racism_Boot  posted on  2009-12-06   12:58:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Racism_Boot (#10)

who exactly held George W. Bush accountable for the opinion of his advisor John Yoo who once publicly argued that there is no law that could prevent the President from ordering the torture of a child of a suspect in custody – including the crushing of said child’s testicles?

I'm against torture.

Obama is for torturing babies.

A K A Stone  posted on  2009-12-06   17:32:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: A K A Stone (#11)

I'm against torture.

Torture has its place in the grand scheme of things. Why, with the right companion, some rope, a bottle of vegetable oil, a live chicken, and a pair of fur-lined handcuffs, it can actually be quite entertaining.

Obama is much too conventional and white-bread to go in for torture though (unless you count the talking heads at Faux News who scream like so many stuck pigs every time he opens his mouth).

What's the difference between Sarah Palin's mouth and her vagina? Only some of the things that come out of her vagina are retarded.

Racism_Boot  posted on  2009-12-06   18:39:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com