Organ Donation Discussion - Page 4
Forum Index > General Forum |
Pleiades
United States472 Posts
| ||
Emnjay808
United States10625 Posts
I am pretty avid when it comes to my health. I work out at the gym 3 times a week, and run regularly every morning. I dont smoke or have done any drugs of any sort my entire life (23 years old). I am only the occasional drinker, but I only do it for social events etc, which is about 1-2 times a month. I take very good care of my body, I can only expect that whoever ends up with my organs, will do the same. That being said, I honestly dont have a worry about who ends up with my organs. I can imagine that whoever goes through something as extreme as organ transplant will definitely have a new appreciation for life, or at least thats what Id like to believe. | ||
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On March 26 2012 06:52 Emnjay808 wrote: Only thing I have against donating my organs is if whoever gets my organs will have to treat them with the same respect (for lack of a better word) that I have. I am pretty avid when it comes to my health. I work out at the gym 3 times a week, and run regularly every morning. I dont smoke or have done any drugs of any sort my entire life (23 years old). I am only the occasional drinker, but I only do it for social events etc, which is about 1-2 times a month. I take very good care of my body, I can only expect that whoever ends up with my organs, will do the same. That being said, I honestly dont have a worry about who ends up with my organs. I can imagine that whoever goes through something as extreme as organ transplant will definitely have a new appreciation for life, or at least thats what Id like to believe. You might say that, but I know people who had a heart attack and happily continued smoking, drinking and eating unhealthily after. I will problaby become an organ donor and while I won't even know where my organs end up, I just hope they are indeed treated with care and not wasted. | ||
DarkEnergy
Netherlands542 Posts
And the talk about wanting to judge the person receiving it is a bit silly if you ask me. Prolonging even lets say an in your eyes asshole's life could lead to events that would benefit people you approve of. Lets say a child use your imagination. Ive read the post so far and i am a bit curious. The poll "Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified ?" is currently in favor of No with 55 votes. Now I have not read a post defending the no vote or for that matter the yes. I see this automatic donor with a opt out system as most logical and the fairest solution. I have had these talks with friends/close family and we reached consensus pretty quick. The only con i could think of is that a adolescent person can not make his will clear. either because he is unable to speak or not developed enough to make a informed decision. So the choice would be made by the parents. And that could lead to a kid being screwed by their parents beliefs/convictions. I am talking about that if you opt out you lose the right to receive organ transplantation or ever opt in agai | ||
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
As for doctors not giving good standard of care for people with viable organs, that is preposterous. Medical ethics boards (who oversee all organ transplants, donations etc) would never allow a doctor to knowingly treat both the donor and the recipient in cases of non living donations. Most of the time, the organs are transported hours away to the person who is considered highest on the list of need (factored with medical need, viability and time spent on list) and not down the hall to the doctor's other liver patient. Until we have a better solution with grown transplant organs and other treatments, this is our best bet at improving patient outcome for millions of sick and injured people. EDIT Ive read the post so far and i am a bit curious. The poll "Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified ?" is currently in favor of No with 55 votes. Now I have not read a post defending the no vote or for that matter the yes. I voted "no". My defense is that, ethically, medical treatment and the distribution thereof should be blind to the nature of the patient and his or her deeds, other than those that are medically relevant like consumption of alcohol, smoking and related things. It is not the place of doctors, ethics boards or donors to judge the merit or worth of another human being. That right lies solely with the country's judiciary system (this is true regardless of country imo). If we start judging the merit of other humans's right to receive equal medical care, we put ourselves into positions of arbiters of another person's fate. | ||
Carson
Canada820 Posts
On March 26 2012 06:30 SySLeif wrote: You forgot that in places like China they kill prisoners and take their organs or put them to death for organs. My ethics teacher is from China and was talking about a guy who was accused of killing a girl in their town and they put him to death and took his organs within a few months and a few years later the girl was found not to be dead but just had run away. LOL that sucks. Although, I do think that prisoners should be organ donors by default. Repay your debt to society indeed | ||
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On March 26 2012 07:13 Carson wrote: LOL that sucks. Although, I do think that prisoners should be organ donors by default. Repay your debt to society indeed Often times, prisoners are automatically declined the ability to donate because of higher incidence of HIV, Hepatitis and other donation excluding infections in prison populations (sources available upon request, but laaazy) | ||
DarkEnergy
Netherlands542 Posts
On March 26 2012 07:06 drshdwpuppet wrote: I voted "no". My defense is that, ethically, medical treatment and the distribution thereof should be blind to the nature of the patient and his or her deeds, other than those that are medically relevant like consumption of alcohol, smoking and related things. It is not the place of doctors, ethics boards or donors to judge the merit or worth of another human being. That right lies solely with the country's judiciary system (this is true regardless of country imo). If we start judging the merit of other humans's right to receive equal medical care, we put ourselves into positions of arbiters of another person's fate. I find your opinion very well voiced but i fail to see were the doctors, ethics boards or donors lay judgment or were we put ourselves into positions of arbiters of another person's fate As in this system the person decides himself there is no other party involved. We as a group provide this system with these rules but thats all. And if you think that providing that ruleset/system is judging i fail to see that. It provides a platform for the most logical form of distribution. It is a very good and fair way of managing a sparse resource that everybody has and needs. | ||
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
| ||
xM(Z
Romania5257 Posts
@DreamChaser: if everything in this world is pre-determined i won't really help her, would i?. i would maybe just delay the inevitable. @FreddYCooL: well since we live in an economic age ruled by money i'd say worth = money. 99% of people are worth less then the other 1% just because the circumstances (the sheer numbers) made them ... expendable/replaceable. | ||
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On March 26 2012 07:42 DarkEnergy wrote: I find your opinion very well voiced but i fail to see were the doctors, ethics boards or donors lay judgment or were we put ourselves into positions of arbiters of another person's fate As in this system the person decides himself there is no other party involved. We as a group provide this system with these rules but thats all. And if you think that providing that ruleset/system is judging i fail to see that. It provides a platform for the most logical form of distribution. It is a very good and fair way of managing a sparse resource that everybody has and needs. I think there is an inherent difference between providing a reasonable set of rules and saying "the entirety of group A is not allowed to receive donations". I think that saying someone who smokes, does drugs, etc is not allowed to receive donations is okay, even encourage-able because they all have a legitimate medical reason that donations should not be used on them (namely, they are in a class of people who are more likely to have donations fail because of their choices and lifestyle). They are not "worth less" but instead, less likely to get the same quality of life and usage from a donated organ. Someone who has opted not to donate is not necessarily in that group of people, they just chose not to donate. This does not constitute a medical reason to deny donation and doctors, donors and ethics boards need only concern themselves with the medical facts and what they mean. That is my take on it of course, both sides are defensible and if I were to base my opinion of feelings and what seems right or wrong, I would say that, at the very least, people who aren't donors should be given lower priority on the list. Also, what if being a recipient excluded you from possibly being a donor? (I actually think this is the case, iirc, I read that graft vs host disorder is more likely to occur in people who receive donations from people who have received donations in the past.) Does that mean that people who have received donations shouldn't be allowed to receive other donations? What about someone who has no problem donating a liver or kidney, but says no to hearts? | ||
7mk
Germany10156 Posts
On March 26 2012 02:26 Rimstalker wrote: Of course I will donate. And carry your organ donor card! My sister had one, had a bike-crash that mashed her brain, did not have her card OR id along, so the doctors could not get hold of family to ask for it and they were not allowed to take anything. wow, sorry to hear that man I dont know how other countries handle it but if you dont automatically donate organs like in netherlands then please do, in Germany getting an organ donor card is very very easy, but unfortunately still not many do it, probably mostly because people dont think about that sort of things, i bet very many people who would be willing to donate just dont bother to get a card | ||
Blacktion
United Kingdom1148 Posts
When it comes to it ill be dead, my problems will be over, why the fuck would i care what happens to my organs? | ||
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
Here in the US, organ donation is a for-profit industry. Doctors are pressured into declaring a patient "dead" as soon as possible, in order to salvage their organs for donation. There have been a number of scandals that have arisen because some doctor preemptively decides that a patient is going to die anyways, so their organs can be quickly salvaged before they expire. Don't believe me? Look up Ruben Navarro. On March 26 2012 04:35 Valashu wrote: No proper doctor would let a 'viable' person die because they want the organs, seriously. Maybe in your country, but not in mine. Seriously. | ||
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:22 Voltaire wrote: I've been an organ donor for several years, but recent information that I've discovered has convinced me to get myself removed from the list. Here in the US, organ donation is a for-profit industry. Doctors are pressured into declaring a patient "dead" as soon as possible, in order to salvage their organs for donation. There have been a number of scandals that have arisen because some doctor preemptively decides that a patient is going to die anyways, so their organs can be quickly salvaged before they expire. Don't believe me? Look up Ruben Navarro. Sounds like an irrational fear based upon an extremely rare exception. The odds of you actually encountering this is so miniscule that it shouldn't influence your behavior at all. I mean just compared with the odds of dying in a car accident... | ||
drshdwpuppet
United States332 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:22 Voltaire wrote: I've been an organ donor for several years, but recent information that I've discovered has convinced me to get myself removed from the list. Here in the US, organ donation is a for-profit industry. Doctors are pressured into declaring a patient "dead" as soon as possible, in order to salvage their organs for donation. There have been a number of scandals that have arisen because some doctor preemptively decides that a patient is going to die anyways, so their organs can be quickly salvaged before they expire. Don't believe me? Look up Ruben Navarro. I believe you completely (healthcare is an industry after all, people want to make money), but that doesn't mean that organ donation doesn't do good or isn't worth it. Organ donation does objective, science based good. I want to see some studies and analysis that show organ donation is more harmful than benificial before I do something as drastic as saying "my organs won't be donated because of the practice of a small number of doctors and HCOs". That isn't to say there is no problems with our organ donation systems, there certainly is, but cases like those of Mr Navarro and Dr. Roozrokh are not the norm. And in the future, relying on the case of someone who was acquitted of all wrong doing and not convicted of a single felony in the case in question is probably not the best of supports. | ||
ensign_lee
United States1178 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:22 Voltaire wrote: I've been an organ donor for several years, but recent information that I've discovered has convinced me to get myself removed from the list. Here in the US, organ donation is a for-profit industry. Doctors are pressured into declaring a patient "dead" as soon as possible, in order to salvage their organs for donation. There have been a number of scandals that have arisen because some doctor preemptively decides that a patient is going to die anyways, so their organs can be quickly salvaged before they expire. Don't believe me? Look up Ruben Navarro. Maybe in your country, but not in mine. Seriously. This is a complete myth. Do not spread FUD. | ||
morbvs
Germany358 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:03 7mk wrote: wow, sorry to hear that man I dont know how other countries handle it but if you dont automatically donate organs like in netherlands then please do, in Germany getting an organ donor card is very very easy, but unfortunately still not many do it, probably mostly because people dont think about that sort of things, i bet very many people who would be willing to donate just dont bother to get a card That will change though. I think the plan currently is that every health insurance will prompt their clients to give a declaration about organ donation every 2 years and their decision will electronically be saved on the Gesundheitskarte (e-card from your insurance) which every german has anyway. We'll see what our parliament makes of this in the end, I think the green party and the left had some concerns about privacy and data protection. On March 26 2012 08:37 ensign_lee wrote: This is a complete myth. Do not spread FUD. There is a vivid discussion going on in science though about wether brain dead = dead or not. Because some scientific evidence say otherwise. And also the current measures for the diagnosis of brain dead are not really sufficient, at least many argue it. | ||
Bosu
United States3247 Posts
On March 26 2012 08:22 Voltaire wrote: I've been an organ donor for several years, but recent information that I've discovered has convinced me to get myself removed from the list. Here in the US, organ donation is a for-profit industry. Doctors are pressured into declaring a patient "dead" as soon as possible, in order to salvage their organs for donation. There have been a number of scandals that have arisen because some doctor preemptively decides that a patient is going to die anyways, so their organs can be quickly salvaged before they expire. Don't believe me? Look up Ruben Navarro. Maybe in your country, but not in mine. Seriously. This could never happen in the USA, at least at any hospital I have worked at. Declaring a person brain dead at the hospital I work at is going to need to get by a lot more than one greedy physician. There will be many nurses, therapists, and physicians involved with a patient being declared brain dead with many tests that need to be documented by all of these health care workers. | ||
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On March 26 2012 09:42 morbvs wrote: There is a vivid discussion going on in science though about wether brain dead = dead or not. Because some scientific evidence say otherwise. And also the current measures for the diagnosis of brain dead are not really sufficient, at least many argue it. I'm interested to know more about this. What do you mean when you say the current diagnosis of brain dead isn't sufficient, according to many arguments? It seems simple to me. If your brain is literally dead, meaning utterly zero neuronal activity is present at any region of the brain, permanently, then you are dead. If there is still independent activity at your brain, you are not dead, and your brain is not dead. If there is no activity at your brain, but it is kept alive via machine assisted maintenance of biological functions necessary to keep the brain alive, then the brain tissue is alive, but you are dead, assuming no signaling persists despite the preserved tissue. However, if the brain is kept alive, but signaling persists independent of any induction, I think it's okay to say you're alive. | ||
| ||