From the opinion page, a pair.
First, Dan Haley talks down to the voters:
Voters also are more likely to approve [school] bond issues in presidential years, according to Fox's data. That can be attributed to a more diverse group of voters casting ballots during presidential years. School-tax curmudgeons - often elderly people without kids in local schools - are more regular voters in all elections.
Funny, I don't feel so old. I have an alternate theory: perhaps people who vote in more elections tend to be better informed on the issues and realize that our schools are awash in money.
Second, an editorial titled, Organ donation raises legal, ethical concerns:
Hickey paid $295 a month to advertise his plight on a donor match website and then paid for the donor to come to Colorado. The Internet broker is a for-profit company.
And
And what about the risks? We would not want to see Hickey's case spur people in need of a quick buck to sell an organ without considering the long-term consequences. "We don't want people jeopardizing their health to benefit financially," Wheeler said. "In this case, now you have a person who will have potentially bad health long-term."
The biggest problem [Donor Alliance spokesperson Nikki] Wheeler foresees is that sick people could become easy prey for Internet brokers. "They'll do whatever they can to save their lives," she said. "We don't want them taken advantage of."
Neither do we.
The Post's skepticism of people's ability to act in their own best interest is deplorable. Why do they raise the issue of the for-profit company? I can't think of any better way to increase the availability of donated organs than to allow people to sell their organs, which is currently illegal.
Posted by Walter at October 22, 2004 03:10 PM