|
On March 26 2012 11:15 Nevermind86 wrote: I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor?
Some surgeries do involve cadaver bones- for example, my father had an intervertebral disk removed (which is cartilage) and replaced with a cadaver bone, connected to the adjacent disks by a metal device. Or, for example, a surgeon that lectured to my class told us about one of her patients who dislocated her shoulder so often (daily basis, was hardly even painful at that point) that the patient entirely wore down the head of her humerus, almost 1/4 of it entirely gone. The surgeon went in and replaced that part of it with a cadaver bone that was of similar size and shape. A simple example and an extreme example, but same concept.
Generally these uses of cadaver bones have a much smaller demand than that of organs, where there are always far more needed than available, which is why you probably don't hear about it as much.
|
I will definitely donate.
|
If I donate my body parts, technically a part of me is still fully functional. So logically speaking, I am still walking among humans therefore my presence is still felt by the humanity. At end of the day, by this twisted standpoint, I am still 'alive'. Hey better to be alive by a fraction than to be fully inactive right?
So yeah, if by donating my organs would help in extending my legacy, then by all means, go nuts with them,
|
On March 26 2012 11:45 scaban84 wrote: My estate better get paid for my organs. No donations. I'm not going to let hospitals profit off of my goods. They are up for sale though,
It is this attitude I don't like. First off, selling of organs like this is very illegal and no doctor will do that above the table. Second, the cost that goes into an organ transplant is immense. You need to pay a surgical team of experienced organ harvesters (including the actual surgeon and the support staff of nurses etc). It is a highly skilled job, removing an entire organ without damaging any part of it and with the necessary accessory blood vessels and other items required for reattachment. Then you have to pay for immediate transport (usually necessitates last second flight booking + paying someone to actually be responsible for transport) then you have to pay the surgical team (several doctors, one or two surgeons, a host of nurses etc) to put the damn thing back in, then for expensive immunosuppressants etc. The whole process is just expensive because that is what it costs to hire out that kind of skill, expertise, time, equipment etc. Hospitals aren't doubling the price of everything to turn a profit, in fact, they are under huge pressure to be as efficient as possible because the expense of the operation plus the increasing stingy nature of insurance companies probably means they will just barely break even, if they do at all.
|
I just realized from reading the replies, but should I include in the "cons" the danger of being prematurely pronounced dead so that your organ can be donated?
Does anyone have documented proof of this?
One interesting point also raised is whether it should be bought instead of donated. After all hospitals profit from it, so why not the donor/his family.
|
This maybe a slght detour for this topic but I assume people are advocating increased supply of organs to meet the current long waiting lists that exists for recipients. What about the actual donation facilities?
What is causing the queues for organs? Naturally people think it would be a short supply of donors but is this the case? Bare in mind even if a donor is found their organs have to be harvested in an appropriate amount of time and transported to the correct recepient. This requires the hospitals to have the facilities available to both identify the donor and to extract the organ. The procedure itself requires a surgical team for both the extraction and implantation.
In short, does the availability of the right facilities affect the supply of organs available for transplantation? Does focusing public attention on the supply of donors actually succeed in increasing successful donations?
Thoughts?
|
i will donor my organs when i die.
why.
because i dont need them anymore. simple as that really.
who knows. maybe im a mutant alien and my kidney will take over the new hosts body forever letting me live on.
|
On March 26 2012 12:09 TyrantPotato wrote: i will donor my organs when i die.
why.
because i dont need them anymore. simple as that really.
who knows. maybe im a mutant alien and my kidney will take over the new hosts body forever letting me live on.
Holy shit, you just gave me an ideal for my next science fiction story.
|
If I'm able to sell my organs ("Donation" is kinda false since you're also discussing people who are paid for organs who can still live), I will. Once that's legal to do, sign me up to donate a kidney for cash if the market price is substantial. Or, provided I'm married and loved ones are still alive, donate all kinds of organs for $$ if I'm dying no matter what, and the estate can go to a loved one without the government siphoning 50% or more of it in the transfer.
If there isn't any money involved in my parting with organs, count me out, with exceptions to family and loved ones. I mean, once and if I start a family, I'll have the discussion of organ donor without monetary compensation with my own family.
|
I see a lot of people posting that if you choose not to donate your organs that you should not be allowed to receive organs either... Lets say that someone gets a new organ and then dies anyway after a longer and somewhat happy life, would you want their organ? That means the organ served 2 people before you... I'm sure that wear and tear eventually makes organs somewhat useless or at least less efficient.
Anyway, I don't plan to donate anything from my body. I get weird looks whenever I renew my license and they ask me if I want to be a donor and I say no, I think that's unfair but whatever. The only way I would donate anything is if someone in my family or my best friends needed something.
|
On March 26 2012 12:40 GreEny K wrote: I see a lot of people posting that if you choose not to donate your organs that you should not be allowed to receive organs either... Lets say that someone gets a new organ and then dies anyway after a longer and somewhat happy life, would you want their organ? That means the organ served 2 people before you... I'm sure that wear and tear eventually makes organs somewhat useless or at least less efficient.
Anyway, I don't plan to donate anything from my body. I get weird looks whenever I renew my license and they ask me if I want to be a donor and I say no, I think that's unfair but whatever. The only way I would donate anything is if someone in my family or my best friends needed something.
Receiving an organ isn't like picking out a used car. You're DYING, your least concern is how much "wear and tear" an organ has. You would choose to die than to get an organ because it has been used twice? That's so illogical I can't comprehend it.
|
On March 26 2012 12:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 12:40 GreEny K wrote: I see a lot of people posting that if you choose not to donate your organs that you should not be allowed to receive organs either... Lets say that someone gets a new organ and then dies anyway after a longer and somewhat happy life, would you want their organ? That means the organ served 2 people before you... I'm sure that wear and tear eventually makes organs somewhat useless or at least less efficient.
Anyway, I don't plan to donate anything from my body. I get weird looks whenever I renew my license and they ask me if I want to be a donor and I say no, I think that's unfair but whatever. The only way I would donate anything is if someone in my family or my best friends needed something. Receiving an organ isn't like picking out a used car. You're DYING, your least concern is how much "wear and tear" an organ has. You would choose to die than to get an organ because it has been used twice? That's so illogical I can't comprehend it.
I'm not saying don't accept organs if they are used, I'm just wondering what wear and tear does to organs. Obviously the body wasn't made to last over a hundred years, so what happens to an organ that someone else had that you now have...
I don't understand your comment at all, you seem offended for no reason...
|
I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor? Reposted.
|
On March 26 2012 11:36 divito wrote:Appeal to emotion. Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 11:19 FallDownMarigold wrote: You totally disregard the objective good entailed by organ donation -- saving lives -- in favor of a totally irrelevant observation that it leaves the body "not whole". Irrational. Objective good? Good is a subjective classification. Something cannot be objectively good. The only true statement that could be made is that organ donation has the potential to extend/"save" lives. The goal is to extend/save lives, and not all donations and transplants go well, so it saving lives is not absolute. And that's not an argument against the donation, as you might take it, I'm just clarifying. And as such, I'm not saying that I will never consider, or won't ever get a donor card; I was merely highlighting what it means and feels to me as a proposition. I don't deny that my useless body could end up helping someone through a donation of an organ or certain tissue. I again, would have to agree that we should look to extend everyone's lives just for the sake of a fallacy. There are some proponents that would contend that extending lives with the use of procedures and medication is artificially disrupting natural selection, increasing/maintaining the world population, promoting poor genes that would otherwise be gone, and causing us more harm than good by wasting resources that would otherwise help future generations. Not a complete personal view by me, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I guess I just threw in the word "objective" as a strong word but didn't mean it literally. So If your action of becoming an organ donor results in more potential to save lives, which on the whole it does, then it can be considered morally good from a consequentialist viewpoint, which so far appears stronger than the opposite deontological viewpoint whereby your action of not becoming an organ donor stems from some rule or perhaps irrational/emotional belief (such as in your case, where you don't want to be an organ donor because of the "body is not physically whole after death" belief). So maybe I'm still being unclear on why, even from a consequentialist view, more lives saved is good. I think that it should be easy to see that the positives of saving lives/extending lives with organ donation outweigh the negatives, unless we're missing some crucial data.
I think you're mistakenly thinking there is an "appeal to emotion" fallacy here. "Appeal to emotion" is a potential fallacy, but here in this case you can actually call organ donation good, via a version of consequentialist ethical reasoning, as I've shown. It's not drawn off emotions -- it's drawn off ethical reasoning. You can attack this viewpoint -- perhaps even with other consequentialist examples of negative effects of organ donation -- and you pointed out some counter arguments, but I think these are weak. So to reiterate, I'm not intending to use emotions to prove that organ donation is "objectively" good. I'm saying that being an organ donor results in more saved lives, overall; therefore, organ donation is consequentially good, even despite some less significant negatives. So I'm still not seeing the fallacy. Maybe you could explain in detail
With regard to the last arguments you mentioned, I have not seen any cogent examples, but feel free to post some if interested in sharing
|
On March 26 2012 14:07 Nevermind86 wrote: I have a question, is it possible to have a bone donation, let's say you need to replace a bone could you get it from a dead donor? Reposted.
You got like 3 good answers plus you can google if you're really interested in the matter...
|
In Spain you are an organ donor by default, unless you or your family directly opposes it. This is why we have one of the best transplants systems in Europe (or so I'm told). Take into account that anyway most forms of death harm the organs and they can not be used for transplant, if you die too old or if the ambulance does not get to you on time, so in the end the odds that you'll be donating yours are still quite slim.
Also the "will you donate an organ while alive" poll lacks an option. I might do it, if one of my family members needs it and I can provide it.
|
On March 26 2012 04:13 Kickboxer wrote: Oh hi, another productive religious discussion.
Yes all healthy corpses should donate their organs to save lives, this one is a no brainer. I LOLED.
|
I'm selfish. I won't donate just because I feel like I'm getting ripped off. I don't think you can choose to donate to just family and friends, and it isn't like you're getting paid to donate. And save your speeches of "Oh you're dead, you don't need it any more!" I already said it above- I'm selfish and I don't care. I'd donate if it were only going to people I care about.
|
|
On March 26 2012 22:28 RoosterSamurai wrote: I'm selfish. I won't donate just because I feel like I'm getting ripped off. I don't think you can choose to donate to just family and friends, and it isn't like you're getting paid to donate. And save your speeches of "Oh you're dead, you don't need it any more!" I already said it above- I'm selfish and I don't care. I'd donate if it were only going to people I care about. Well then selfish is probably not the word then. Since your dead there is no sense of self right? Asshole is probably more appropriate but not quite the best adjective. I'll get back to you if something better comes to mind.
|
|
|
|