Bravo!! Encore! Encore!

Thank you for this.

I'll be using yor post in a lecture this afternoon on how politicians need to stay the hell out of public health. The anti-hero will be Jesse Helms' role in preventing effective HIV prevention.

*your* duh

I recognize the difficulty of some of these decisions, but not the organ donor one; that's a no-brainer. Note that most people who decide not to donate their loved ones' organs end up regretting the decision, while absolutely NONE of the people who do donate end up regretting giving life to others -- often multiple others from a single donor.

Thanks for your thoughtful perspective. Being from Canada, where we don't put minority rights to a vote (don't bother referencing the the Quebec sovereignty referendums -they were about more than rights) I find it really medieval that California of all places does. I cannot for the life of me, figure out why Americans, accept without challenge, the caustic notion that the majority should decide on the rights of a minority

Call in the organ donation team, or the morgue?

Good question Now in my 8th year of the biotech debacleracket a couple of wild unemployed years thrown in there, ya know, no working furnace during JanFeb in some Columbia City flophouse reputable i have you Anyway the organ DoNaTioN thing is misconstrued Very Big Business in selling body parts sort of like that PETA ad with the girl all dotted traced like a Bovine for BUTCHER has anyone blogged about the the US largest kosher meat arrest in Iowa today Link to CNN So the point being uh duh do i ever have a point To the morgue sire, Sire, do you hear me

Here here.

(But I do hope neither of us has to go to jail to prove the point.)

Fnarf, some people do not believe in organ donation for religious reasons. While I do believe in donation and am a donor, my partner is not, and I would honor his wishes. Also, stating that no organ donor ever regrets his decision to donate is a red herring - few donors (bone marrow, kidney, maybe partial liver) are alive after the surgery to either reaffirm or regret their decision.

Hey, I didn't know you were a med student! Cool.

And, I agree. Well said.

@7, I was referring to the survivor, not the actual tissue donor. No one ever regrets giving up their loved one's tissues, EVER -- but MOST people who say "no" do regret it later.

If your religious beliefs are against organ donation, you're full of shit. There is no grey area here. FULL OF SHIT.

Excellent, Excellent, Excellent post.

You are absolutely, positively, 110% correct, sir. May the rest of humanity catch the fuck up with your thoughtful, compassionate reasoning.

My husband doesn't want his organs donated, but I sort of snicker and say too bad. I'm the one who gets to makes the decision, buddy. Your bits are going to the chopping block.

And I'm serious -- like Fnarf I think that there's no gray area here.

Some pharmacists might start exercising their civil disobedience and not dispense Plan B, based on this reasoning. I applaud your stance, but this is why we have laws. So people in positions such as yours don't have to make this decision - it's already been decided. I hope that every caregiver I come into contact with respects my wishes - or what my partner deems - but we need the law to clearly state that and not leave it up to individual caregivers to decide.

Maybe someone more knowledable than I could comment on this, but my understanding is that Article 1, Section 10 of the constitution prohibits states from passing any law that invalidates a contract. A marriage is a specific type of contract, correct?

So wouldn't the only thing this law do is make it so that there could be no more NEW gay marriages?

Most lawyers believe that any marriage can't be annulled once it's completed.

So I wouldn't worry.

@12

The clear difference is: Golob would respect the autonomy of patients, while wingnut pharmacists would trample it.

As for the religious argument: Don't take your organs with you, God knows we need them here.

@4 - Because to get anything on the ballot in California (and most western states), all you need is a certain number of voter signatures. No involvement of government officials is required and there aren't any restrictions on the content of initiatives. There's a long history of strange initiatives being passed by voters in California.

I'm all for respecting patient autonomy and people's right to commit suicide. But as a med student I don't believe physicians should take an active role in hastening their patients' deaths, just as they should not use their expertise to take part in executions, torture, elective abortion, etc. I'll be voting against I-1000. I would be open to the idea of licensing specialized "death practitioners" maybe as a part of a hospice team, but physicians should not take part.

I align with the political intentions your post is geared toward. But I have two problems with your reasoning.

1. Where does provider autonomy fit in to the law?
2. Who would want to get an abortion from a doctor who a) doesn't believe they are moral or b) hasn't actually done many.

The most important part about medicine is actually not a contractual agreement between doctor and patient, it's the personal relationship. Not only do strong trusting alliances between patient and provider leave people happy, they encourage health and reduce litigation. The concept I am getting at here is the therapeutic alliance. In my estimation this is a give and take partnership, not a fee for hire arrangement.

If it were the latter, physicians would be relegated to mere technicians.

I am in medicine for the therapeutic alliance. I fully support Roe v. Wade, I voted for I-1000, but I wouldn't perform an abortion. I would refer the patient to Planned Parenthood or a provider I would trust to do the procedure safely.

superwill in seattle @14

for the love of jebus & the FSM...

PLEASE STFU! your stupidity amazes me.

you aren't funny or relevant, and with every post you just confirm your douche status.

or is that what you're shooting for?

@ 20: What is FSM?