Sunday, September 06, 2009

Perfect example of Progressiveism - Are you using your liver?

If our readers don't know what the political philosophy of Progressiveism is or how it is antithetical to democracy, here is the perfect example:

“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. …”

Remember, Cass Sunstein is President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the Regulation Czar (where ARE CZARS mentioned in the Consti...Never mind). He wants to nudge people through regulations, not democratic debate. Because the government knows best, he feels that it would be much more efficient to harvest organs without explicit consent. You can always "opt out."

Mrs. Cargosquid has been involved in the organ transplant field for over 20 years. The ethics debates are endless. And throughout the entire history of American transplant science, the idea of explicit consent has been the rule. Because you are a sovereign citizen, not a resource.

Other countries, such as France, use presumed consent rule, apparently, without a problem. However, the culture and politics in other countries do not put such an emphasis on individual liberty as we do. China has been known to use prisoners as resources. How progressive.

However one feels about this idea, the choice of explicit consent or presumed consent should be done in an open debate, in Congress or State legislature, with input from medical experts, ethics experts, and constituents.

Progressives don't actually like input from the masses.
They know what's best for you:
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.
Mandated Choice? Excuse me? I wonder, has Cass Sunstein signed HIS organ donor card?

h/t Pundette at Hot Air

Labels: , , , , ,



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home