در حاشیه جشنواره فیلم ابوظبی
عباس کیارستمی: «اگر بهمن قبادی فکر میکند در خارج از ایران شرایط بهتری برای ساخت فیلم دارد، به او تبریک میگویم»
سینمای ما- عباس کیارستمی بار دیگر اعلام کرد، قصد خروج از ایران برای فیلمسازی در کشورهای دیگر را ندارد. وی در گفتوگویی که با روزنامه «نشنال» در کاخ امارات داشت با بیان اینکه هنوز هیچچیز او را برای ترک ایران متقاعد نکرده است، گفت: «میخواهم همچنان در کشور خودم و به زبان مادریام فیلم بسازم اما بهنظر این کار هر روز سختتر میشود و انرژی من در حال پایان است».
کارگردان «زیردرختان زیتون» با تاکید دوباره بر اینکه ایران را ترک نخواهد کرد، گفت: «آنچه از ایرانیهایی که کشور را ترک کردهاند مشاهده کردهام، پیامد چندان مثبتی نبوده است. من هیچ انتقادی از آنهایی که ایران را ترک میکنند، ندارم. اگر بهمن قبادی فکر میکند در خارج از ایران شرایط بهتری برای ساخت فیلم دارد، به او تبریک میگویم». وی در ادامه اظهار کرد: «اما درباره خود من، شخصا اعتقادی به ترک ایران ندارم. جایی که شبها میتوانم آرام بخوابم، خانهام است.
ما فیلم میسازیم تا زنده بمانیم. صرفنظر از اینکه چه شرایطی وجود دارد، خانه من در انتهای یک کوچه بنبست، جایی است که در آن زندگی میکنم و هیچچیز مرا برای ترک آن متقاعد نکرده است».
کارگردان«طعم گیلاس» با اشاره به مصاحبههای قبلی خود درباره فیلم «شیرین» تاکید کرد: «قبلا هم گفتهام، ممکن است فیلمهای بیشتری بسازم اما میخواهم فیلم «شیرین» آخرین ساخته سینماییام باشد». کیارستمی درباره فیلم «رونوشت برابر اصل» که نخستین فیلم ساخته شده توسط او در خارج از ایران است، اظهار کرد:«ساخت این فیلم تمام شده و این تجربه جدیدی برای من بود؛ کارکردن با یک بازیگر زن و عوامل حرفهای. البته فیلم باید ابتدا به نمایش درآید تا
ببینیم چه از آب درآمده است».
برنده نخل طلای کن در ادامه
گفت: «ساخت این فیلم برای من سادهتر از همه فیلمهای قبلیام بود؛ حتی آسانتر از فیلمهای کوتاهی که ساختهام چون با تیم حرفهای هم در پشت دوربین و هم مقابل دوربین کار میکردم». به گزارش ایسنا، وی درباره نظر هیاتداوران برای انتخاب فیلم روسی «Hipsters» بهعنوان بهترین فیلم جشنواره هم گفت: «آنچه سرنوشت یک فیلم خوب را رقم میزند، نه نقدهای سینمایی است
و نه جایزه بلکه فقط زمان است.
ما قضاوتهای سطحیمان را در هر جشنواره انجام میدهیم اما میدانیم که حرف آخر را ما نمیزنیم». عباس کیارستمی امسال ریاست هیاتداوران جشنواره فیلم خاورمیانه را برعهده داشت که شنبهشب در ابوظبی پایان یافت. وی اوایل ماه دسامبر (آذر ماه) بهعنوان رئیس هیاتداوران جشنواره فیلم مراکش به این کشور آفریقایی سفر خواهد کرد.
Some observers see Iran's protests against this disputed election as a "Velvet Revolution” similar to the one that ended Communism in Eastern Europe. Others fear a repeat of China's 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. But none of these comparisons easily fits the unique combination of discord on the streets and infighting in the corridors of power currently under way in Tehran. The situation is all the more dangerous and unpredictable because the election and its aftermath appear to have surprised all the major players, forcing them to improvise their responses to a fast-changing situation. The situation is delicately poised; what follows are three possible scenarios.
First: A Tehran Tiananmen?
The decision by the Supreme Leader to announce the election results as final in hand with the harsh language used by Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards to describe opposition protests - and their reference to an Eastern European style Velvet Revolution backed by the West - appeared to be generating a narrative that would justify a bloody crackdown, with massive use of military force that would terrify the opposition into submission.
Clearly, the limited violence unleashed by the Ahmadinejad camp thus far has failed to intimidate Moosavi and his supporters. But while it would almost certainly clear the streets, the "nuclear option" of a Tiananmen Square style crackdown would be a potentially fatal wound to the regime's own sources of legitimacy - its limited but lively democracy and the backing of Shi'ite clergy. Discord among the mullahs is growing, with some senior clerics like the esteemed dissident Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, currently under house arrest, publicly condemning Khamenei's handling of the election and warning ordinary soldiers and police officers that they would "answer to God" for any violence against the people. A crackdown would risk reducing a regime built on clerical authority and "managed" democracy to a tyranny on par with the Shah. Khamenei will be reluctant to go that route. But his handling of the political crisis thus far will have deepened long-standing skepticism within the clergy about his abilities as Supreme Leader. A harsh crackdown, even if followed by reforms, would solve an immediate crisis, but at the cost of inflicting a possibly fatal long-term wound on the regime.
Two: A "Zimbabwe" Option?
The option that would likely hold the most appeal to Khamenei now would be to broker an agreement similar to the one that has kept Zimbabwe's President, Robert Mugabe, in power despite essentially losing an election - by bludgeoning the opposition into settling for an important yet subordinate role in his government. Already, Khamenei has appealed to a sense of national unity and preserving the regime, hoping to cajole the opposition into accepting the results. And at his first press conference following the announcement of his victory, Ahmadinejad reportedly asked his opponents to submit lists of candidates for membership in his Cabinet. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad may be hoping that standing firm and having the Guardian Council affirm his victory after a 10-day recount will produce enough oppositional fatigue, which, combined with the threat of violence, will force protests to dissipate.
By so doing, Khamenei would hope that the pragmatic conservatives - embodied by Moosavi - can be weaned away from the reformists (led by former President Mohammed Khatami) by giving them a stake in a nationally united government and promises to moderate Ahmadinejad's style of governance. However, that scenario would come into play only if Moosavi believed that he was losing the battle and risked disaster by keeping his supporters out on the street.
Three: A New Election
The opposition demands a new election possibly with international observers. Regardless of the outcome of such an action, it would restore public trust, end demonstrations and provide legitimacy and respect for the government at international community. However, this will undermine Khamenei credibility and ability to handle crisis. He blundered when he yoked his own position as Supreme Leader - which is typically above the factional fray of the regime's politics - so closely to Ahmadinejad.
He issued a barely disguised public endorsement of the candidate, and then rushed to proclaim Ahmadinejad's "Divine Victory" and ordered all Iranians to accept it. Further, on Friday he announced election results final and Ahmadinejad as ultimate winner, asking an end to demonstration. In public defiance of his request the opposition has continued resistance and public demonstrations have mounted. If the combination of escalating street demonstrations and the politicking of Moosavi's backers force Khamenei to reverse himself, then his credibility will be damaged within the regime, heralding the onset of a bitter backroom struggle in the coming years to choose his successor.
Could Iran Have a Female President in Near Future? The Iranian Guardians Council stipulated that the word 'rejal' means "men," a significant interpretation, given that under the constitution the president of the Islamic Republic "must be elected from the religious and political 'rejal.' The disputed word, which comes from Arabic, could also be interpreted as meaning "mankind" or “personalities” in Persian and this is the interpretation used in some English translations of the constitution. In a literal translation it means “exclusively the male” which is the route the Guardian Council has taken. Based on this it has barred women from the presidency. Iran's Persian Language Academia is welcomed to interpret the word, but it is not clear whether the Guardians Council would implement their interpretations.
It is in this context that IranDokht finds it essential to pose the following questions and to invite socially concerned Iranians to express their views to contribute to the current debate.
1- As a socially concerned Iranian, are you for or against women’s right to presidency?
2- Did the architects of the Iranian Constitution base it exclusively on Sharia law and conclude that, therefore, women can not be president? If so, how can other Islamic countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia allow women to hold presidential office?
3- In Sharia law, beyond being judged, are there any other discussions of women’s professional positions? If so, are these observed in Iran? Currently, Iran allows women to form a part of the Cabinet of Ministry or Parliament, as well as the right to be president of private organizations. What is the difference between these positions and being the country’s president that makes the latter unattainable for women?
4- To what extent is interpretation of Sharia law determined by traditional social and cultural values of the Iranian society?
5- Could a new interpretation of the word "rejal" pave the way for an eligible female presidency in the IRI? If not, is there room for it within the Iranian constitutional framework? How?
6- What is the significance of gaining the right for women in the presidency? What changes can we expect from a female president in the IRI; would she infuse the women’s movement or defuse it further, considering the traditional position of some of the current female MPs in Iran.
آيا رييس جمهور آينده ايران می تواند يک زن باشد؟
شورای نگهبان قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی، اعلام کرده است که کلمة «رجل» در قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی به معنای «مرد» است و، در نتيجه، زنان حق ندارند خود را برای رياست جمهوری اسلامی کانديد کنند يا برای اين سمت انتخاب شوند. ايراندخت بر اين اساس اين نظريه و به دليل بحث هايي که در ارتباط با اين نظريه در ايران مطرح شده است پرسش های زير را مطرح کرده و در اختيار برخی از صاحبنظران و فعالان فرهنگی ـ اجتماعی قرار داده است که جواب ها را به مرور در اين قسمت از ايراندخت منعکس خواهد کرد. ۱- آيا شما ،به عنوان يک فعال اجتماعی، موافقيد که زنان ايران حق رياست جمهور شدن داشته باشند؟
۲- آيا فکر می کنيد نويسندگان قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی در هنگام تدوين اين قانون به شريعت و فقه اسلام توجه داشته و بر اساس آن نتيجه گرفته اند که اسلام با رياست جمهور شدن زنان مخالف است؟ اگر مانع شرعی برای رئيس جمهور شدن زن وجود دارد چرا در ديگر کشورهای اسلامی (مثل پاکستان، افغانستان، بنگلادش و اندونزی) زنان می توانند رئيس جمهور شوند؟
۳ـ آيا در شريعت اسلام و تشيع امامی ـ سوای سمت هايی همچون قضاوت ـ پيش بينی هايی هم در مورد سمت های ديگر دولتی در رابطه با زنان شده است و آيا اين پيش بينی ها در جمهوری اسلامی رعايت می شوند؟ اساسا چه فرقی است بين سمت رياست جمهوری و نمايندگی مجلس يا مديريت کل يک اداره که در جمهوری اسلامی فقط رئيس جمهور شدن زنان امکان ندارد؟
۴- نقش تسلط ارزش های فرهنگی ضد زن در اين نوع برداشت ها و تفسيرها از قانون چقدر مهم است.
۵- آيا همواره کردن اين راه می تواند از طريق خواستاری تفسير جديدی از کلمة «رجل» ممکن شود؟ آيا اساسا در ساختار جمهوری اسلامی راهی برای مجاز شدن زنان به احراز سمت رئيس جمهور وجود دارد؟
۶- به نظر شما اهمیت قانونی شدن انتخاب زنان برای رياست جمهوری چیست و چه تغييراتی ممکن است در ايران به وجود آورد؟ آيا رسيدن يک زن به رياست جمهوری را می توان يک پيروزی برای جنبش زنان ايران دانست؟
How much exposure is too much? As the debate over the Muslim hijab, or head scarf, grows with its visibility, wearers defend it as a emblem of identity. Others despise it as a sign of oppression and an obstacle to women's progress.
A growing argument emphasizes the enforcement or outlawing of the hijab as contradicting basic human rights; they favor free choice.
Yet, others argue that every society draws a line after which baring one's body is regarded as unacceptable.
How much baring is too much? Where do we draw the line? This is a hot debate we would like to invite you to participate in.
بحث حجاب به عنوان یک پوشش اسلامی در چند سال گذشته ابعاد جهانی یافته است. مدافعان حجاب آنرا سمبل هویت فرهنگی میخوانند، مخالفان نشانه کنترل و باز دارنده زنان از پیشرفت.
برخی اجباری بودن حجاب یا بی حجابی را مغایر با حقوق انسانی دانسته و خواستار آزادی حق انتخاب پوشش برای زنان هستند.
در جواب به این گروه گفته میشود که در همه ی جوامع مرزی وجود دارد که پس از آن برهنگی مورد نکوهش قرار میگیرد.
چه میزان از پوشش و برهنگی مقبول و از کجا غیر قابل قبول است؟ چگونه این مرز تعیین میشود؟ ایراندخت شما را به شرکت در این بحث داغ دعوت میکند.
Complaints about the use of foreign words in the Persian language is nothing new. Efforts to remove outside influences have been made in the past, focusing mainly on the use of Arabic and Turkish in the daily lexicon. However, since the Islamic revolution of 1979, a mass influx of immigrants have given rise to a new generation of hybrid Iranian identities, who comfortably mix Persian with their native languages.
Additionally, with the growth of the Internet and the global community, more and more Iranians must use English with higher frequency. This has led to younger generations of Iranians mixing English into their everyday communication.
These trends have raised concerns of those who see it as an identity crisis. They argue that the Persian language has played a central role in the survival of Iranian identity over thousands of years and must remain pure.
Others believe that this is the inevitable outcome of globalization and must be accepted. Yet, there are those who argue that throughout Persian history, even at the height of its ancient glory, the Persian language was influenced by outside sources. A willingness of a culture to take on characteristics of new cultures is a sign of richness, not decadence. It is a cause to celebrate, not a crisis to be concerned about.
We invite you to participate in this fascinating debate.
An Iranian-American Perspective
With the heated, reinvigorated debate on immigration reform, WE, as Americans of Iranian heritage, would like to share the views of our Community in anticipation of its accommodation in the current legislative process, as follows: Whereas we empathize with the plight of the 12 million illegal immigrants and their employers and the public at-large relying on their labors, we nonetheless, stress unequivocally the need for this continuing prioritized commitment of this country to the repatriation of families of Americans as stipulated in the federal legal codes. The notion of rewarding those who arrived via Entry Without Inspection, at the expense of penalizing family members, i .e., parents, children and siblings, who have anxiously awaited for the LEGAL adjustment of their status overseas for 15-20 years, is ludicrous, absurd and un-American.
We, therefore, oppose any restrictions on the current family-based immigration laws. Moreover, our current laws providing adjustment of status to permanent residency and naturalization for immigrants of outstanding scholarly abilities on whom our country has so heavily depended in the past fifty years, as well as the same stipulations afforded to legitimately verified political asylum seekers, must continue.
Finally, we must put an expeditious legal mechanism in place, so that family members of Americans overseas, who do not seek permanent residency in the U.S., but would very much like to periodically visit their close relatives here, are accommodated. Specifically, after a careful expedited security check, such family members should be granted Multiple Entry Visitor visas to travel to the U.S. without the need to secure tourist visa on each sojourn. This predicament, contrary to the principle of free family travel rights, has particularly become financially burdensome and emotionally taxing for Americans and their relatives aboard, especially after September 11 and the enactment of the Patriot Act. They are denied, in many instances with no appeal rights, the American temporary tourist visas.
James Irani, Esq. David Rahni, Ph.D.
The authors, an attorney and a university professor, respectively, are with The Voice of Iranian-Americans, gratis, in New York.
Brides marrying to live in Western countries! Some traditional Iranian men who are not able to establish a successful relationship with the opposite sex, are turning to traditional method of mate selection - the arranged marriage. A man living in abroad searches for a bride in his homeland and brings her to the country he lives as his wife. This phenomenon, although an ancient practice, is not merely a tradition of the past.
Modern versions of this practice are also at play; internet has become a meeting space for those in search of love, bridging men outside the country to women inside the country.
In short the “picture groom” practice is booming in Iran while the number of imported Iranian brides to Western countries are increasing. However, the statistics suggest that these Iranian style marriages are not successful in Western context. There are too many divorces.
Some accuse women of being opportunist, trading love for Green Card. Others blame men for pretending to be someone they are not. IranDokht invites readers to express their opinion on this topic.
A Page from the History - published August 25th was a very interesting and important historical note. I would encourage further historical comments on the period between September 1941 and the removal of Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953.
The well-published, international journalist, Amir Taheri, has written an interesting article on the latter subject. Your article refers to P.M. Mossadeq as the "democratically elected" Prime Minister. President Clinton and others make the same reference. However, Amir Taher writes that Mossadeq was "appointed" to his position by the Shah twice, and twice dismissed. What is the truth ? Were there widespread elections in Iran at that time ? Was the Prime Minister elected or appointed?
While I am completely familiar with the influence brought to bear by the U.S. and U.K.on the removal of Mossadeq and return of the Shah to power, the post-war struggle between the U.S. and the USSR in Iran need further discussion. For instance, the Soviet troops refused to leave the northeast after the war. With Soviet encouragement, the Kurds announced the establishment of a new state in their area of Iran and the Azeris were about to follow suit. At this time U.S. and U.K. support helped the Shah to maintain Iran's integrity and suppress that break-away movement.
Similarly, the Soviet-backed "Tudeh" party in Teheran had stimulated strikes and demonstrations in support of Mossadeq's deposition of the Shah. Were the Soviets also behind the 1949 assasination attempt against the Shah ?
I noticed a great lack of informed discussion on historical events in Iran from the beginning of the Shah's reign in September 1941 until the 1953 period.
The Islamic Republic's version of Iranian history is as questionable as its assertion that 60,000 martyrs died in the final overthrow of the Shah, as they proudly declare on the Martyrs' Monument near the American Embassy in Teheran. The notorious post-revolution trials and executions by Ayatullah Khalkhali (a.k.a. Khunkhori)may have brought the number of deaths sharply up but these wouldn't have counted as "martyr" deaths. Wasn't the alternative to U.S. influence in Iran always a Soviet or Islamic Republic?
Increasingly Iranian women who grow up in the West choose Western men over Iranian men for dating or marriage. They claim that relationships with Iranian men are often caught in a web of traditional under codes that gradually force them to take traditional roles and undermine their independence and confidence.
Iranian men, frustrated with rejection, turn their gaze towards Iran, and with the aid of technology the practice is on the rise. However, statistics suggest a higher-than-average divorce rate that is often bitter, with imported brides being accused of being opportunists looking for Green Cards and/or influenced and changed by Western culture.
Key questions remain:
Do our men struggle to accept women as equals?
Do our women show prejudice towards their own culture?
Are our relationships caught in a web of traditions? Please participate in this hot debate.
بطور روزافزون زنان ایرانی که در غرب رشد کرده اند از رابطه عٍاطفی با مرد ایرانی اجتناب میکنند زیرا معتقدند که چنین رابطه ای اسیر زیر بنایی سنتی است که بتدریج زن را در رل سنتی مستقر نموده و استقلال و اعتماد به نفس او را از بین میبرد.
مرد ایرانی چاره را در یافتن همسر از ایران میابد که امروزه به کمک اینترنت بسیار متداول شده است. ولی امار نشان میدهد که در صد بالایی از چنین ازدواج هایی به طلاق منجر میشوند. عروس وارداتی نیز به فرصت طلب بودن یا/و غرب زده شدن متهم میشود.
آیا مردان ما قادر به پذیرش زن بعنوان انسان مساوی نیستند؟
یا این اتهام نا بجایی است ناشی از کوچک انگاشتن فرهنگ از سوی این زنان است؟
آیا ما در روابط عاطفی اسیر زیر بنایی سنتی هستیم؟
ایراندخت شما را به شرکت در این بحث داغ دعوت میکند
Open forum is aimed to foster discussion or simply provide a place to vent on issues within our culture that are not often openly discussed for reasons ranging from insignificance to political incorrectness.
As it evolves over time, this section could become an eclectic collection of voices, extending awareness and understanding of our culture. Please participate.
این بخش جهت تشویق بحث، گفتگو و حتی درد دل در مورد مسایل فرهنگی است که به دلایل مختلف از صحیح نبودن آن تا مهم نبودن غالبا به سکوت برگذار میشوند.
به این امید که این بحث ها در طول زمان بتواند به درک برخی از مسایل اجتماعی کمک کند.
ایراندخت شما را به شرکت در این بحث داغ دعوت میکند
Progressive or Demeaning?
Seigheh is a temporary contract between a man and a woman that allows sexual interaction and sets the conditions, including the duration of the contract (which could be as short as few minutes or as long as many years) and financial obligations of the parties. This controversial practice dates back to beginning of the Islam but lost its popularity in modern Iran until the Islamic revolution of 1979 when it became legal. Since then, it has become common for interaction with the opposite sex for reasons ranging from preventing government harassment to gaining protection and financial support for poor or divorcee women. Today, prostitution is also practiced legally in the name of Seigheh.
In spite of its legal status and wide practice, Seigheh remains a socially undesirable, even deplorable practice that is not openly admitted. The temporary nature and notion of financial obligation, troubles many who call Seigheh a form of legal prostitution that jeopardizes the institution of marriage and family, and undermines women's dignity.
Supporters of Seigheh argue that it is a practical solution to a social need under the framework of Islamic laws. It is a progressive measure that rather than demeaning women, acknowledges female sexual desire and facilitates that, something that the West has come to accept only in the last few decades. Similarly, it is pointed out that free sexual relations in the West have coexisted for decades with the constitution of marriage without underminning it. The financial obligations many find troubling is also regarded as protection for women and compared to notion of the prenuptial agreements that are becoming increasingly popular in the West. Finally, it is argued that Seigheh, is an indicator of how progressive and equipped Islam is in dealing with social ills and needs that other religions and societies often deny or ignore.
Progressive or Demeaning?
Plesae express your view.
صيغه قراردادی است شرعی و قانونی میان مرد و زن که معاشرت جنسی را در زمانی محدود با توافق بر میزان مسولیت مادی مرد نسبت به زن مجاز مینماید.
این سنت مذهبی که در طول زمان به فراموشی سپرده شده بود پس از انقلاب اسلامی قانونی و رایج شد. امروزه علاوه بر مردان مذهبی، مردان و زنان زيادی برای معاشرت های جنسی بدون مزاحمت دولت و برخی زنان مطلقه برای حمایت مادی و معنوی به صیغه روی میآورند. اکنون تن فروشی در ايران نيز زير پوشش صيغه انجام می شود .
علارغم متداول بودن, صیغه از نظر اجتماعی عملی نا پسند محسوب میشود و غالبا با سکوت و پنهان کاری انجام میشود. اجازه صیغه کودک خرد سال، زمان محدود، و مسولیت مادی در صیغه موجب انتقاد شدید از این سنت مذهبی شده تا جایکه برخی آنرا تن فروشی قانونی و استفاده جنسی قانونی از کودکان خوانده اند و آنرا موجب تضعیف خانواده و تحقیر زنان دانسته اند.
مدافعین، صیغه را راه حلی قانونی و عملی در جواب به نیاز جنسی زنان و مردان خارج از محدوده خانواده میدانند که نه تنها زن را تحقیر نمی کند بلکه نیاز جنسی او را می پذیرد. از دید این گروه بحث تضعیف خانواده نیز با اشاره به روابط آزاد زن و مرد در غرب رد میشود. مسولیت مادی مرد نسبت به زن نیز میتواند به عنوان توافقنامه پیش از ازدواج محسوب شود
این گروه پا را فراتر گذاشته و صیغه را نشان بارزی از پیشرو بودن اسلام در جوابگویی به واقعیت های اجتماعی که دیگر مذاهب آن را نادیده گرفته اند و یا با سکوت برگذار کرده اند میدانند. ايراندخت شما را به شرکت در این بحث پیچیده دعوت می کند
By: Rezwan Razani
Last week I met a man whose mission it is to convince people in America to become living kidney donors - to donate their kidneys to friends, family and strangers who need one. Here's their website: http://www.giftoflivingdonation.org
He got involved when his son came down with renal disease and he became a living donor himself.
When I found out what he does for a living, I cheerfully told him that Iranians say "qorbuneh jigaret" and that it means "I'm the sacrifice for your liver". He now thinks that Iranians have a culture of donating their organs. As he said in an email: "I wouldn't think Iran has an organ shortage problem thanks to the difference in culture. But cultural differences are HUGE. This morning I read that a poll in Canada showed that 45\\\\\% of their population is STRONGLY opposed to Presumed Consent (i.e. checking the box NOT to donate at death)."
So I coughed and said - um, that's just an expression. I don't know if Iranians actually live that line. I don't even know if I translated it correctly. Let me get back to you.
How do these statistics compare with Iran?
Now - how do you feel about donating your organs?
If you are against it, how do you feel about receiving organs? Should you be eligible to receive organs if you don't agree to donate your organs?
Many people are against donating their organs, until they or their family needs one. Then suddenly, they are for it. On the other hand, this past spring there were 2 cases in New York where the families of recipients of organ donations who died (not related to the organ transplant) would not allow the recipient's organs to be donated to someone else.
Apparently, you don't have a change of heart until you *need* a change of heart. And then, you have a change of heart again.
And now - how about a "qorbuneh Koliet App"? It would not name names. Patient confidentiality would be assured. However, the data from hospitals on organ needs (kidneys, livers, hearts) would be broadcast to this app which would show you the nearest hospital and their organ requirements. So, you would punch in your location, and you would see that 10 blocks away is a hospital that needs a kidney with B+ blood. You would realize - hey! I can sacrifice one of my kidneys for this person! I will be a hero!
Or you could just watch the lights as they change from "needing kidney" to "going into kidney failure" to "too late! No-one stepped forward."
So many fascinating issues, so little time.
"Presumed consent" is controversial. This is illegal now. If enacted, it would mean that, unless you check a box saying otherwise, the state presumes that you DO want to donate your organs upon death. Right now, they assume you DON'T want to, and have to get permission from family. Families usually say no. They don't like their loved ones carved up. (Recycle organs! The ultimate recycling).
"Compensation to donors" This is frowned on. They don't want people to in any way be pressured or exploited to give their organs. It has to be 100\\\\\% altruistic. That sounds lofty, but if you're poor, and you do this nice thing, I think at the very least, and without exploitation, you should be given comprehensive health insurance for life - a full upgrade. It would be non transferrable, only you benefit. Only you, so your family couldn't pressure you for their benefit. Living donation should provide an overall health upgrade. Who cares if it's not a total sacrifice on the donor's part? It's still heroic, and with the insurance, it's sensible.
As for me, I have signed the papers and have the sticker on my driver's license that makes me an organ donor upon my death. The great thing about this is that when I die, my body may end up as a cadaver in some teaching hospital. I will thus have fulfilled my parents life long dream of going to medical school upon my death. : )
I still haven't made the decision to be a living donor. But I'm waiting for that insurance compensation deal, and also the "qorbuneh koliet app." It would be cool one afternoon to just randomly walk into a hospital and say to someone, "qorbuneh jiggaret, qorbuneh koliet." - and mean it.
The Ground Zero mosque debate is garnering increased attention in the world press, with Muslims coming down on both sides of the proposed center two blocks from the former World Trade Center. After nearly a month of debate, the controversy surrounding the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” continues to roil, both domestically and worldwide.
We invite you to participate in this fascinating debate.