proposed Connecticut law

I just saw an article about a proposed law in Connecticut about helmet use vs organ donation. The story stated that the law proposes that if a motorcyclist is killed in a traffic incident while not wearing a helmet is presumed to wish to donate their organs.
While the way it is written is pretty crude and at the very least insensitive I think I support the sentiment. New Mexico tried such a law several years ago and there was quite the uproar and it was repealed.
I have indicated on my driver's license that I am an organ donor. I know a person who received a liver via organ donation about 30 years ago when she was 12. She has cared for it carefully and is an outstanding human being. If there is anything left usable when I go I would like to think those parts could be shared and extend someone else's life.
I also support helmet laws. So many selfish people about who think so little about their impact on anyone else or the cost of their selfishness on those around them in the name of their personal freedom.
Let the flaming begin. Please, no personal attacks. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, these are mine. if you disagree, let's hear your thoughtful arguments for or against.
John
ps, I am a retired ER nurse and former EMT/first responder, just for point of view perspective.

 

In the UK you have by law to wear a lid. On a trike you don't. As well as my XJs I have a Vmax 1200 trike. I allways wear a lid with a visor

 

When I was an apprentice in the construction industry we didn't wear PPI to the same extent we do now. Off subject I know but the changes I think are right. I would never not wear a helmet even if it was legal to do so. I was knocked off my XJ at a roundabout and my head hit the road. The car pushed my bike the driver was picking away and looking right. My helmet saved me from cuts at least. Too many drams @Minimutly getting my response mixed up lol.

 

Most US states require helmets as well. I am not comfortable riding without one.

 

in florida , if you wear a helmet you don't need to have insurance .
if you don't wear one you must have ins. to cover $10,000 worth of injuries.
passengers must helmet .

 

Insurance for $10k of injuries? In modern healthcare that would be used up in the ambulance ride to the ER, before a person even got in the door for anything more serious than a twisted ankle.

 

I'd be ok with that.
Only the most selfish asshole would deny the chance of further living to others by the donation of items he no longer needs.

 

This seems rather overbearing and likely unconstitutional.
I am an organ donor but would not support such a law as I feel its invasive.
I feel to do proper, it would need to require an operator to sign a waiver and maybe have a sticker on the bike.

would you say that everyone who drives a convertible is an organ donor?

Don't get me wrong, I support Organ donation but to 'defacto" someone to be one is wrong IMO

 

Well, as a current CT resident it doesn't surprise me that they would consider this.

For the record, I do wear a helmet all the time, even though in this state it's not mandatory.
Also, I choose to be an organ donor. Although being 60, I wonder what would still be usable?

Anyway, I feel making a personal choice as a donor ahead of time by the individual should be the only factor in the post mortem donor decision.

My guess is statistically most people that die while not wearing a helmet haven't elected to be organ donors. And IMHO,
I believe they're just trying to create a legal way to get some free organs, that they normally wouldn't have access to.

Tony

 

Already have a place to make that choice and that on the DL when you get it correct? So to over step and chose for the person on the sight and maybe against their wishes it not right. But who ever said that law makers ever have a moral or ethical North pointing compass? Imho, it is up to the person at the DMV when they are asked, other wise, mistakes can and will be made in the field. No lit at it flew off, can't find the head ect.

 

In Zew Zealand wearing a helmet is compulsory by law. Organ donation is up to the rider and is printed on the licence.
If no decision was made during the licence process then I believe it's up to the next of kin to make the decision.
We have all our medical paid for by taxes, ambulance ride is $80.

 

I remain torn by this idea. I too always wear a helmet and am signed on as a donor. At almost 68 some parts of me are pretty worn but are still better than lots of folks on the needed an organ list. There was a study years ago, I think by Snell, that a rider who dies in a crash while wearing a helmet has an average of 3 other fatal injuries. Helmets these days are much better than those of that time, likely 20 + years ago. I am not sure what that info means to this discussion but there you go. This morning I am in favor of the law due to the number of folks who need those organs. And knowing the above mentioned person in the original post who has made such wonderful use of her donated liver and life there after.

 

I wonder if that same will go for an auto drive with no seat belt on? Same principle, no helmet or no seat belt. My point being that supply and demand seem to start to take a moral and ethical toll.