Of course there is potential for abuse, but that can be an argument against literally EVERYTHING. Even when you put all the religious/ethical (what can be more ethical than saving a human life if the opportunity is there and it costs you nothing?) bullshit aside, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the cost is LITERALLY nothing and benefits can be immesureable to the person receiving help.
Organ Donation Discussion - Page 8
Forum Index > General Forum |
Plague1503
Croatia466 Posts
Of course there is potential for abuse, but that can be an argument against literally EVERYTHING. Even when you put all the religious/ethical (what can be more ethical than saving a human life if the opportunity is there and it costs you nothing?) bullshit aside, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the cost is LITERALLY nothing and benefits can be immesureable to the person receiving help. | ||
DemonDeacon
United States158 Posts
On March 27 2012 22:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I'll usually get warned or temp banned if I get too far into arguments like these, so I'll just say this and get out of the thread: There is no universal definition of death. Doctors are the ones who decide when people are dead. Thus there have been instances where someone will come into the ER after a car accident for instance and be deemed "dead" so their organs can be harvested and given to someone in need in the hospital. In my medical ethics class we discussed the potentials of abuse for such a system, and discussed a case where a rich well off man in a community who needed a heart was given one after a homeless came in after a fall unconscious and his heart was harvested for the rich man. Legally, the doctor was untouchable. I will not be an organ donor until there is a universal definition of death. yeah my parents wouldn't let me be an organ donor because they were afraid if i got in a car accident the doctors may decide to let me die if they saw i was an organ donor | ||
RaiderRob
Netherlands377 Posts
On March 27 2012 00:36 Crisco wrote: In reality, organs are donated as fairly as possible as long as a few limited criteria are set. Although not all-inclusive, these are: 1) Remaining life expectancy of the patient (young over old) 2) Life expectancy after transplant (someone who is terminally ill regardless of transplant would almost never receive transplant) 3) urgency of need of transplant actually that may be it. Prisoners/criminals are given transplants just as fairly as anyone else with no real priority except for good compatability. You're forgetting 4) How much money and power someone has, example Dick Cheney. | ||
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On March 27 2012 23:15 RaiderRob wrote: You're forgetting 4) How much money and power someone has, example Dick Cheney. people with that factor likely still can't get their organs through normal channels, though sufficient money can access the questionable black market. properly donated organs probably won't go to people using their riches to cheat the system | ||
SpiritoftheTunA
United States20903 Posts
On March 27 2012 22:54 Plague1503 wrote: I'm really not sure how anyone can be against it. This may seem as a bit extreme, but I also honestly don't believe families or even potential donors themselves should have a say in the matter. If you die, your organs are still salvageable, and any part of you can be used to save or improve the quality of life of even a single living being, that should be done. Of course there is potential for abuse, but that can be an argument against literally EVERYTHING. Even when you put all the religious/ethical (what can be more ethical than saving a human life if the opportunity is there and it costs you nothing?) bullshit aside, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the cost is LITERALLY nothing and benefits can be immesureable to the person receiving help. this argument presupposes that everyone wants to help everyone i do not want to help everyone "what can be more ethical than saving a human life if the opportunity is there and it costs you nothing?" this in particular, which you apparently hold to be self-evident, isn't necessarily true. what if my ethical system places natural death above unnatural salvation? overpopulation is a problem after all, and people in need of organs will carry a variety of problems back into the world (including, but not limited to, financial difficulties) my ethical system happens to be consequentialism, and saving the life of someone in need of an organ has very variable consequences on overall society though now that i think about it, people who are brought to the brink of death tend to come back with a better view on life ala this stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near-death_experience#Effects but stopping your logic at "i saved a life i did good" is pretty simplistic... | ||
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
"It would cost money but it could greatly increase the amount of organs available." So we should appeal to humanity's greed and love for material gain to increase the donating ? And not appeal to humanity's love and understanding. -Yes, apealing to humanitys greed is how everything is getting done, and it has proven to be verry efficient. Much more efficient then apealing to ideals, the whole capitalistic economy is based on human greed. Greed is good (gordon gecko) "In the end it could benefit everyone" So how do you come to the conclusion that everybody asking money for their organs would be better ? -It could (could not would, it depends of course on the way it will be implemented) greatly benefit everyone as more organs will become available. Because if everybody is asking money all the people could get organs right ? Everybody has money right ? Just giving them away for free is not/less beneficial for everybody ? right ? O wait... -No off course not everyone has monney, it could be paid for by healthcare. Why it benefits everyone: in the end this does not cost the economy anny monney or resources, it only shifts monney to thoose who are willing to part with their organs after they die, the net result for the society as a whole is more organs available. Why should people give away their organs for free? i have not seen one good argument for that (beside charity) People might not like the idea of beeing messed around with their body, their relatives might not like it. People could fear to be pronounced death prematurly or before everything possible has been tried (though this fear might not be justified, this fear does exist), i find it absolutly normal that people would get compensated for that. Besides that; its my body and the body belongs to my inheritance. Organs do have a value (as organs are bought and sold every day) so why should i give them away for free?? Maybe my children need an organ later on and they might be low on the list, With the monney they got from selling my organs after i died they could still get their transplant in china or some other place where you can buy them, while without it they would not have that option (this is just a hypothetical example) I can also see organs becoming realy cheap this way, alot cheaper then they are now! | ||
TheFrankOne
United States667 Posts
On March 27 2012 23:15 RaiderRob wrote: You're forgetting 4) How much money and power someone has, example Dick Cheney. Cheney waited 20 months for a transplant. The average wait in the US is 6 months to 3 years. (http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/heart/patients/topics/transplant.html) So.. that sure is preferential treatment right there. | ||
Voltaire
United States1485 Posts
On March 27 2012 22:54 Plague1503 wrote: I'm really not sure how anyone can be against it. This may seem as a bit extreme, but I also honestly don't believe families or even potential donors themselves should have a say in the matter. If you die, your organs are still salvageable, and any part of you can be used to save or improve the quality of life of even a single living being, that should be done. Of course there is potential for abuse, but that can be an argument against literally EVERYTHING. Even when you put all the religious/ethical (what can be more ethical than saving a human life if the opportunity is there and it costs you nothing?) bullshit aside, it's a simple cost/benefit analysis, where the cost is LITERALLY nothing and benefits can be immesureable to the person receiving help. I'm too cynical to trust people, especially when profit is involved. Here in the US, organ donation is a $20 billion industry. I've personally seen the dark side of the US's healthcare system; I've seen how the profit motive can completely overshadow morality. I'm not going to risk being euthanized to have my organs harvested. You see, there are different definitions of death. There is "brain death" (death like we know it) where your body has totally shut down and you're gone forever. Then there is "cardiac death", which ONLY means that your heart has stopped beating. The thing is, you can still be revived five to ten minutes after your heart stops beating. That's why defibrillators exist. You're not really dead yet. Unfortunately, either definition can be used. There are doctors out there that will immediately jump on any opportunity to harvest usable organs. They'll cut you open right after your heart stops beating. Don't believe me? 11% of organ donations in 2008 came from patients who were declared CARDIAC dead but not BRAIN dead. (source: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011spring/article5.html ) This is why I am going to have myself removed from the organ donor list. EDIT: Here's a very recent news article that mentions a number of specific cases where doctors were about to proceed with an organ donation, but family members object, and the donor ends up recovering, despite the doctor's claims that there was no chance. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r I guess this problem isn't limited to the US alone. | ||
BlackJack
United States9223 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:40 Voltaire wrote: I'm too cynical to trust people, especially when profit is involved. Here in the US, organ donation is a $20 billion industry. I've personally seen the dark side of the US's healthcare system; I've seen how the profit motive can completely overshadow morality. I'm not going to risk being euthanized to have my organs harvested. You see, there are different definitions of death. There is "brain death" (death like we know it) where your body has totally shut down and you're gone forever. Then there is "cardiac death", which ONLY means that your heart has stopped beating. The thing is, you can still be revived five to ten minutes after your heart stops beating. That's why defibrillators exist. You're not really dead yet. Unfortunately, either definition can be used. There are doctors out there that will immediately jump on any opportunity to harvest usable organs. They'll cut you open right after your heart stops beating. Don't believe me? 11% of organ donations in 2008 came from patients who were declared CARDIAC dead but not BRAIN dead. (source: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011spring/article5.html ) This is why I am going to have myself removed from the organ donor list. EDIT: Here's a very recent news article that mentions a number of specific cases where doctors were about to proceed with an organ donation, but family members object, and the donor ends up recovering, despite the doctor's claims that there was no chance. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r I guess this problem isn't limited to the US alone. FYI, that first link you provided does not back up your conjecture at all. Doctors are required to try to resuscitate you unless you have a DNR. 11% of donations from cardiac death does not mean they were cut open as soon as their heart stopped beating. I'd bet the real number is far closer to 0%. | ||
whiterabbit
2675 Posts
| ||
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie. besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Maybe they were predestined to have their life extended with your organs? | ||
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On April 30 2012 23:29 whiterabbit wrote: I don't know how organ donation works in my country, I've never been asked to be donor in hospital or something but anyway as me being brutally paranoid about everything I am pretty sure I would never accept to be donor, can't even think of a logical reason why not but I would feel unhealthy scared and general discomfort by fact I am listed somewhere as donor and get in situation of forced organ donation or something. :/ If you're concerned about being on an official register but would otherwise be happy to donate after you are dead, you can discuss your wishes with your family and/or record your wishes in a kind of will - you would sign a document detailing your wishes but only you and the witness/witnesses would know about it unless you do die in a situation where you're happy to have your organs donated. That way no-one in the government and no-one you haven't explicitly chosen to know would even know you had considered being a donor, but you still have the choice. | ||
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
| ||
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On March 27 2012 22:58 DemonDeacon wrote: yeah my parents wouldn't let me be an organ donor because they were afraid if i got in a car accident the doctors may decide to let me die if they saw i was an organ donor If you would still prefer to have your organs donated after your death, make sure your emergency contact knows your wishes and knows that they are only to tell doctors your wishes after they have been told you are dead. That way the doctors won't have any way of knowing that you are a donor until they have already failed to save you. | ||
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
On April 30 2012 20:40 Voltaire wrote: I'm too cynical to trust people, especially when profit is involved. Here in the US, organ donation is a $20 billion industry. I've personally seen the dark side of the US's healthcare system; I've seen how the profit motive can completely overshadow morality. I'm not going to risk being euthanized to have my organs harvested. You see, there are different definitions of death. There is "brain death" (death like we know it) where your body has totally shut down and you're gone forever. Then there is "cardiac death", which ONLY means that your heart has stopped beating. The thing is, you can still be revived five to ten minutes after your heart stops beating. That's why defibrillators exist. You're not really dead yet. Unfortunately, either definition can be used. There are doctors out there that will immediately jump on any opportunity to harvest usable organs. They'll cut you open right after your heart stops beating. Don't believe me? 11% of organ donations in 2008 came from patients who were declared CARDIAC dead but not BRAIN dead. (source: http://stanmed.stanford.edu/2011spring/article5.html ) This is why I am going to have myself removed from the organ donor list. EDIT: Here's a very recent news article that mentions a number of specific cases where doctors were about to proceed with an organ donation, but family members object, and the donor ends up recovering, despite the doctor's claims that there was no chance. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/dad-rescues-brain-dead-son-from-doctors-wishing-to-harvest-his-organs-boy-r I guess this problem isn't limited to the US alone. Sure made me rethink about this issue. Are there any more reported cases of the donors family refusing donation after the doctors declare brain dead, ad the donor recovers? This is a huge ethical or medical mapractice issue. | ||
TMStarcraft
Australia686 Posts
It is a fact that a very small percentage (1-2%) of those who have signed up for organ donation have viable organs upon death, primarily due to not dying in hospital whilst hooked up on life support (source). So this whole idea of 'doing the right thing/ doing good' by becoming an organ donor is more of a feel good exercise than anything in my opinion. It's great that you've volunteered, but the fact remains that the current system cannot satisfy the demand for organ transplants. The alternative is to offer incentives for people to consider giving up their organs. Give people a monetary or preferential treatment incentive to want to provide organs, as others have suggested. Whether or not this is morally or ethically acceptable to the current state of society is another matter. To me personally, if we are not saving lives because the idea of paying for organs is abhorrent, then other people are paying with their lives so that the rest of can feel better about something which doesn't affect us, until it does. | ||
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On May 01 2012 15:16 TMStarcraft wrote: Throwing another log into the fire here but I don't believe it has been discussed fully. It is a fact that a very small percentage (1-2%) of those who have signed up for organ donation have viable organs upon death, primarily due to not dying in hospital whilst hooked up on life support (source). So this whole idea of 'doing the right thing/ doing good' by becoming an organ donor is more of a feel good exercise than anything in my opinion. It's great that you've volunteered, but the fact remains that the current system cannot satisfy the demand for organ transplants. The alternative is to offer incentives for people to consider giving up their organs. Give people a monetary or preferential treatment incentive to want to provide organs, as others have suggested. Whether or not this is morally or ethically acceptable to the current state of society is another matter. To me personally, if we are not saving lives because the idea of paying for organs is abhorrent, then other people are paying with their lives so that the rest of can feel better about something which doesn't affect us, until it does. Another option is to switch the default position towards donation with an opt-out list rather than an opt-in list. Many people who would be happy to donate are not on the donor list simply because they would have to put in time and effort to register themselves. | ||
TMStarcraft
Australia686 Posts
To further elaborate on my point on incentives, in particular monetary incentives, it's a possible solution but it does have its drawbacks. Say in a welfare state like Australia, making organs tradable for cash could adversely affect the welfare system and introduce bias against the poor ([ ] Do you have two kidneys?). But then you look at Iran, the only country in the world to have a legal organ trade market and no kidney transplant waiting list. The podcast below goes over most of what I've talked about and goes on to talk about a solution to the small percentage of viable donors and a kidney exchange program. http://www.freakonomics.com/2010/12/30/freakonomics-radio-you-say-repugnant-i-say-lets-do-it/?src=tptw | ||
Callynn
Netherlands917 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + No seriously, religion is the main cause of strife, disease (and especially the spread of disease) and blocks a lot of scientific progress that would make all our lives easier. Even here in this thread religion comes back to kill people who could otherwise be saved. Will I donate my organs when I am dead? + Show Spoiler + Yes, of course. It's not like I can use them anymore. Would be nice if people accepting my organs would pay my children for them though. Will I donate my organs when I am alive? + Show Spoiler + Yes, if it is to save my children. No in all other cases. Disqualify people who opt not to donate to receive a donation?: + Show Spoiler + Yes, of course. These people are obviously religious in some way, so good riddance. Will I accept unethically or illegally obtained organs to save my life?: + Show Spoiler + No, I do not wish to live if others must suffer for it. Next to that, there is a huge health risk, I will probably be sick my entire life accepting something that has not been obtained legally due to whatever malafide way was used to extract the organ(s). | ||
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Just hope that silly decision doesn't end up costing someone's life, or multiple lives for that matter. Or someone's well being perhaps. | ||
| ||