[Skybird]

It is said that blood conserves in germany are kind of rare. However, regarding public blood donating, my hometown Münster ranks very high, is a hotspot in Germany, at leats the last time I read about it, which is maybe 1.5 or 2 years ago. But: it was supposed to be donation for a wellfare organisation, namely the Red Cross, which runs a huge blood bank over here. Two years ago it was found and reported that the blood donated by Münster people gets commercially sold around and far beyond the region - which is not legal and in violence of certain laws granting the Red cross and othe rsuch organizations certain privilieges and tax liberations due to their character as serving for the public welfare. Commercial profit interests are not tolerated by these laws, to avoid corruption and disruption of the wellfare charcater of these organizations. Which is illegal, because the Red Cross enjoys a certain legal status as an organisation that grounds on it not getting commercially active and not selling service or stuff for profit. They were not allowed to sold blood for profit - while telling the local population that they must donate blood because the regional reserves are running low.



We have already severla very hiuge, seirous scandals within the system of the transplantation industry. Favouritism for patients paying more, international export and import for commercial interest, illegal smuggling, and more.



Where corruption is possible in too big organisations and thus lacking transparency, corruption will occure, that is almost a natural law. However, that is not my basic point of criticsm of mandatory or even just opt-out- organ donation. What I point at regarding the arbitrary redefinition of death criterions that in themselves do not make that much sense as many still believe, but always follow the needs of a blossoming transplantation industry and the involved money (yes, a lot of money if involved in this, and hospitals get bonusses for being envovle din the system in any way) - that is my main criciticsm.



Leave it voluntary. Nobody is subject to somebody else's property interests in his life and body. Where this would get accepted directly or indirectly, no matter for what a reason, justificaiton or cause claimed good and noble, is an agent ob subjugating citizens into subjects and in fact: slaves. We have way too much state-run paternalism and commanding already, we do not need ever more of that, and even touching upon an individuals physical integrity and untouchability.



I am not against donating, I do not want to make my rejection a general obligation for everybody. If somebody wants to donate, so let him do it. Its a most personal decision and nobody shall interfere with it being formed. But I totally oppose the regulation that wants to press, push, nudge, bully, force people into more or less obedience with another ideologically demand. Altruism is no moral duty, but must be a free decision and voluntary action, to be actually altruism and not just enforced obedience. Where this is questioned, tyranny and inhumane crimes will and do rise.



Keep donating voluntary. Opt out models are not donating, but are about plundering everybody who is not up the tree when counting one-two-three.


And nobody here or elsehwhere is the authority to weigh one life span against another. If you need an organ, and get one, see it as a gift freely and voluntarily given by somebody who was not dead but still alive when the organ(s) was/were taken. But you never have had a claim for it. You have no claim for the life of somebody else.

So my model: voluntary opt in - and only when you have filed your willingness at a data base, you shall have access to organs being given to you, if need arrives, of course. This is the general rule, details not adressed in every- well, in every detail. Because of course you cannot expect to be given if you refuse to give in return, that is clear.Solidarity without reciprocity, is no solidarity, but one-sided abuse.