A proposed New York State law could tighten government’s grip on your body

New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky has no idea what Phil is talking about

Who owns your body? Those organs sloshing around inside you — who do they belong to?

New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester County), a candidate for the office of New York attorney general, has recently proposed a law to mandate organ donation, subject to some ability to opt out. I learned of his proposal just a few weeks after my article in this space pointing out that forced redistribution of wealth is on the same moral level as forced redistribution of blood (“Bloody Taxes,” April 15). Many readers wrote to me saying, “Don’t give them any ideas.” Not to worry; they’ve had these ideas for a long time.

Brodsky and I chatted for a few minutes last week.

Maymin: So, the proposal is basically to move from an opt-in to an opt-out system, where people are presumed to be organ donors unless they explicitly opt out, is that right?

Brodsky: Well, there are many proposals. There is an opt-out proposal. There is also what I call a presumed consent proposal. There are proposals on making it easier to enroll. The fact of the matter is we have a catastrophically fatal system. People are going to die today. The system is not working. People have been dying, in New York, in Connecticut and in America. We can do better. People overwhelmingly want to be organ donors. Sixty-seven percent of people want to be organ donors, but only 11 percent are. Part of that is inertia. Part of that is difficulty in registering. We need to find a system that lets them do that. The choice should be theirs.


What about enforcement against those that disagree? What about people who never made a decision but their family now wants to keep the organs?

I don’t know what you are talking about. There is no force here. It is always a choice. These programs have worked in Spain and Israel without any controversy. People can always choose not to donate, and that’s fine.


Then why not do it for wealth too? Assume that when people die, all their property, money, house, and everything goes to the state, unless they have explicitly opted out?

That’s not anything that’s being talked about. And there are no lives at stake there. With organs, there are lives at stake.


But how about allowing those willing to sell their organs to do so?

I would not support that. You are talking about live donations vs. donations done on death.


No, it could be done just on death.

No, I would not support that. We don’t do it for blood. We don’t do it for anything else. A person’s ability to pay should have no effect. There is no virtue to allowing people to traffic in organs. Death traffic is not the way to go. It should not be the case that the wealthy live, while the middle class and poor die.


So what would enforcement of the law look like?

There are no problems. No one is being forced to donate. Each person is making a morally positive choice for themselves.


But if there is no need for enforcement, there is no need for the law.

This program will be accompanied by massive public education. You have to get a driver’s license, don’t you? That’s when you make the choice. Every choice would be an informed choice.


Sensing an impasse, we thanked each other and ended the call shortly after. But I wondered: What gives him the right to presume that he can take my organs unless I jump through his hoops?

I know what he would answer. He thinks when lives are at stake, the government can do anything. By that logic, of course, he should, after some reflection, support an opt-out program for a 100-percent estate tax too. If people die without properly filling out the appropriate oval with a #2 pencil, fully and completely, without going outside the oval and without leaving any empty space inside, then their property should go to the state. It could be sold and the proceeds used to alleviate the suffering of the poor, to pay for better medical attention and insurance for those without access to either, to invest in research and development of new drugs and treatments. It could save many lives.

Lives are always at stake. But we are either true humans, true people with truly inalienable rights to life, liberty and property, or we exist at the pleasure of our legislators.

It’s fine to disagree with people who have no power over you. But when you are talking to the people who make the laws, you can disagree till you are blue in the face and yellow in the liver, they will still get you, and your organs, in the end.

Dr. Phil Maymin is an Assistant Professor of Finance and Risk Engineering at NYU-Polytechnic Institute. The views expressed are his own.

Questions or comments? Email This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Share this story:
Facebook |Twitter |Digg |Reddit |Stumbleupon

Comments

Add New Search

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."