First, the writing says the law never said to be presumed consent but that they authorize taking of organs without permission. As this law was called “routine salvaging laws”. This also points out the two forms of society. One that gives the individual the rights to decide, through a form of consent, to be used. While the other society gives the state the authority even without consent otherwise know as salvaging. “We believe the time has come to be more careful in distinguishing between policies of presumed consent and those of routine salvaging.” (pg.264) The writer isn’t picking sides but states that it is important for organs to only be taken with permission in form of gift or donation. Secondly, consent cannot be readily presumed. True presumed consent laws say that it is legal to take organs without permission because if the owners of the organs would have agreed if they had been asked. This is not valid because surveys showed that only 55% of people would want their organs transplanted and yet only 28% have actually gone through. To make this clear the reading gives the example of an accident, a person unconscious being rushed to the emergency room. The person receiving medical attention without any consent is valid. When conducting a survey on this matter a large majority of people would agree to this presumption as justified. The majority of people know that as one gets older and or more ill, we might me asked if a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order should be placed in case of an emergency. This is something that requires consent from the person and/or his/her family, if not ordered all possible procedures will be done in order to save the person. I feel it makes sense that if refusal hasn’t been made we can presume consent and proceed with the
First, the writing says the law never said to be presumed consent but that they authorize taking of organs without permission. As this law was called “routine salvaging laws”. This also points out the two forms of society. One that gives the individual the rights to decide, through a form of consent, to be used. While the other society gives the state the authority even without consent otherwise know as salvaging. “We believe the time has come to be more careful in distinguishing between policies of presumed consent and those of routine salvaging.” (pg.264) The writer isn’t picking sides but states that it is important for organs to only be taken with permission in form of gift or donation. Secondly, consent cannot be readily presumed. True presumed consent laws say that it is legal to take organs without permission because if the owners of the organs would have agreed if they had been asked. This is not valid because surveys showed that only 55% of people would want their organs transplanted and yet only 28% have actually gone through. To make this clear the reading gives the example of an accident, a person unconscious being rushed to the emergency room. The person receiving medical attention without any consent is valid. When conducting a survey on this matter a large majority of people would agree to this presumption as justified. The majority of people know that as one gets older and or more ill, we might me asked if a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order should be placed in case of an emergency. This is something that requires consent from the person and/or his/her family, if not ordered all possible procedures will be done in order to save the person. I feel it makes sense that if refusal hasn’t been made we can presume consent and proceed with the