You're opening up a whole new can of legal problems by developing a series of contracts where monetary values are exchanged for a future event which may or may not take place and no means of rectifying it i.e. if you are paid for your liver (say) and it turns out that the organ is useless when you're dead then what happens to the contract? There's no form of recompense that can be effected, the entity that has bought the rights to your liver may not be able to claim back the money from your estate (and it's not necessarily as useful to them as a working liver would have been) - effectively it would be a contract with a highly uncertain potential benefit, the only real way for a contract for such items to be useful would be if they could rip it out of you there and then at a point when they knew it is in a currently functional state.
You do realize the whole insurance business is built on uncertainty, and so are the contracts made in the gambling business? Not to even mention the trading of equities and in particular derivatives. I hardly doubt there would be a way to use a medical examination in order to assess the probability for a healthy liver at death using actuarial statistics, taking into account the risks for accidents mangling the organs beyond use too.
Just because a contract depends on uncertainty doesn't mean it would exist. Or I suppose there are no local bookies in your part of the country?
semi-pro waster said:
Do go on, I'm not saying it doesn't happen but I entertain some doubts that the theft of organs is a common problem in the UK or that there are many organ traders unless of course you're referring to hospitals sending organs to other hospitals?
Well no, it wouldn't be as common here since we've got facists telling us we can't sell our bodies at the same time we have all the utter tools giving their organs away for free. And those few who wish to obtain an illegal organ probably do wiser in going to a less developed country with less probability of the law getting in the way. So yes, seems reasonable organ theft in the UK is not very common. So what evidence do you have coercion into selling organs would become common if legalised, and furthermore, why do you feel it's better to use coercion to make sure people don't sell their organs of free weill than to use coercion and force to stop coercion making people sell their orgains unwillingly?
The logic is unfathomable. But oh, silly me, it's not coercion or force when the government does it! Only when the mean mean organ buyer does. As if by magic, God said "And it was good" and it was so. No point questioning it.
semi-pro waster said:
The law doesn't coerce you into not selling your organs, it baldly states that you cannot since it doesn't entertain the notion that you have the right to do so or that such a trade can take place, it would be an illegal contract - utterly unenforceable in law and therefore completely worthless to anyone without the power to enforce it themselves e.g. someone likely to cut your part of the bargain out of you with or without your further consent.
Woe me, being so silly today. So it's coercion when someone threatens another person to enter a contract, but it's not coercion when someone (in this case the government) threatens someone NOT to enter a contract? Or if you will, coerce people into entering a contract saying it's not allowed to sell their organs, and breaking of the contract will be punished by jail/fines.
You have no consistency. To you, Government is God, a higher force which cannot act on the same level as us mortals. If I kill a man, it's murder. If the government does it it's good.
Fact:
I use the threat of violence to make you sell your organ. Coercion.
Government use threat of violence (Since I'm now starting to assume you're slow, I'll even define how the government threatens with violence) to make you not sell your organ. Coercion. Then depending on how you see it they either coerced you not to enter a contract, or coerced you into a contract with them (society) not to sell your organ. Your pick. Coercion was used either way.
Threat of violence: You pay fines, or go to jail. These are threats, because underlying this if you do not comply, police will use necessary amount of force (violence) to make you comply. Ergo, threat of violence.
But if the government is not using coercion and force to stop people WILLINGLY using their own body, I guess I'm taking bids now to sell my organs on the premises they are deliverably upon death or accident where the buying party were not involved in any way. Anyone wanting to go long in livers?
![[ASSE]Hinchy](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
.
