In the UK after it became law to wear seatbelts the fatality rate dropped
causing a similar reduction in the availability of vital organs for
transplants. So, while the odd person might have survived a crash because
they didn't
wear a seatbelt the overall odds work in the direction that belting up saves
lives.
In a message dated 19/11/2008 20:28:18 GMT Standard Time,
grbyrns@ucdavis.edu writes:
I spent 8 years doing tissue crossmatching for organ transplant at UCLA, so
I don't agree with the helmet law. As long as motorcyclists carry enough
insurance to keep their brain-damaged noggins off the public nickle, they
should be allowed their freedom. There are thousands of kidney patients out
there waiting for helmetless riders. Several times I stood in a hallway
with a styrofoam box full of ice waiting for the parents of a young male
motorcyclist to say their final goodbyes before the "harvest". The helmet
law in California has lengthened the stay on the list for potential organ
recipients and cheated Darwin out of his due. But if they don't have
sufficient insurance to maintain them on the tubes for their expected
survival time, its not fair to make the rest of us pay. Motorcyclists that
dismiss this as an unlikely scenario have not stood in that hallway holding
that box.
Glen Byrns
_______________________________________________
Support Team.Net http://www.team.net/donate.html
http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/spridgets
|