|
This topic has been widely alluded too and massively debated on in other threads. This will be the thread to properly and officially discuss it.
The question is, what are your views on organ donation?
Here are the pros and cons:
Pros
- In the case of the dead donor, the organ(s) are used to save lives when they would otherwise be useless
- In the case of the reciever, he will not only get an extention of life, but also an improved quality, as a new organ will help him stay away from mechanical ad chemical interventions to his health
- Parties involved also benefit as the family of the donor feel happy to help and save lives, just as the recipient and the family feel grateful and indebted
- In the case of body donation, it can be used to advance science (or art).
Cons
- The basic con is religion. Jehovah's Witness and Shintoism are two significant religions opposed to organ donation. In Jehovah's Witness, it is not a prohibition on organ donation per se, but on blood transfusion. But since all organ donations require blood transfusion, organ donation is technically prohibited. In Shinto on the other hand, a corpse is considered impure, and intervention to a dead person is considered bad luck.
- The second one is a slight "misunderstanding" and is "pseudo-ethical" and can be easily resolved. In the process of organ removal among dead persons, the body is often held in life support to minimize tissue damage. To families and friends, this may seem disturbing as there will be semblance of life still, even though organ extraction requires that the person is brain dead.
- The most compelling reason against organ donation is not on the individual level but sociological. These are completely different from the "voluntary donor" argument as discussed in the "Pros", so care and attention should be given when replying to and discussing these. These can be broken down into three.
First is the case among live organ donors usually in poor thirdworld countries, Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa, Philippines, Thailand, India, Pakistan, etc. Even though the organ donation is voluntary, some argue that there is no genuine choice becuase on the larger sociological level, this practice, even some call syndicate, takes advantage of the "volunteer's", usually unemployed, poor economic condition, and the decision to volunteer is not natural. The volunteers are "forced to choose" economic benefit (pay is handsome) at the expense of health, usually one of the kidneys. Moreover, research supports that even this economic benefit is illusory, as it encourages dependence among people who'd rather donate an organ than work, and it would in fact put them deeper in poverty as they won't have the necessary knowledge to make their gain sustainable and would revert back to their old lazy ways. The second reveals a much darker side to this phenomenon. There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries. The third is what we can call the "China situation". In China, prisoners, whether or not voluntary, are automatic organ donors. In cases of prisoners in death sentence (in China, death sentence is done by shooting the prisoner in the head), they are immediately brought to the hospital after they are executed for the organs to be harvested. The complications with these arise because the date of execution (in China, death sentence prisoners know the date of their execution only during the date itself) may be adjusted, postponed or cut short, depending on the needs of the market.
These are the pros and cons of organ donation, with two specific subtopics. I hope we can have a good discussion and exchange of ideas on this. There are a few polls below to aide the discussion. Feel free to elaborae on your vote on your posts.
|
Poll: Will you donate your organ(s) when you die?Yes (294) 88% No (40) 12% 334 total votes Your vote: Will you donate your organ(s) when you die? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
Poll: Will you donate your organ(s) while you are living?No (206) 85% Yes (35) 15% 241 total votes Your vote: Will you donate your organ(s) while you are living? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
For this next poll, complete question should be: Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified from receiving organ donation even if they need it?
Poll: Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified...?No (134) 63% Yes (79) 37% 213 total votes Your vote: Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified...? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
For this next poll, complete question should be: Will you receive organs you know are acquired unethically (forced extraction, illegal sources, etc) just so you can live...?
Poll: Will you receive organs you know are acquired unethically...?Yes (137) 66% No (72) 34% 209 total votes Your vote: Will you receive organs you know are acquired unethically...? (Vote): Yes (Vote): No
|
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.
|
United States40776 Posts
The research I've read shows that on average live kidney donors (the people who give kidneys away) live longer than other people. While kidney donors are required to meet a higher standard of health than regular people in order to meet donation criteria it still suggests that the long term health implications are minimal.
|
Please do not list "religion" as a con. You can't argue with religion, theologic debates are nice to have in their own set of rules, but when it comes to "real life problems", they don't really fit. Why do I argue this way? God told me to do so.
|
I like the system where you are automatically signed up for organ donation and have the ability to opt out if you don't want to. I think a lot of people don't really care one way or the other, but never take the time to fill out the paperwork so a lot of organs are lost for no real reason.
I am a registered organ donor so any organs can be taken from my body if I die. I would only be a live donor if it was to help someone in my family.
On March 26 2012 02:26 KwarK wrote: The research I've read shows that on average live kidney donors (the people who give kidneys away) live longer than other people. While kidney donors are required to meet a higher standard of health than regular people in order to meet donation criteria it still suggests that the long term health implications are minimal.
I also think anyone who donates a kidney is likely to be more aware of their health and wellbeing than the average person. They'll probably take better care of themselves by drinking less, for example.
|
On March 26 2012 02:26 xpldngmn wrote: Please do not list "religion" as a con. You can't argue with religion, theologic debates are nice to have in their own set of rules, but when it comes to "real life problems", they don't really fit. Why do I argue this way? God told me to do so. You can't be serious. I simply laid out the issue thoroughly as a matter of fact. Religious fanaticism is just as bad as blanket condemnation of religion as you are doing.
|
I think everyone should be donor as default when dead, and that when you opt out of doning you should lose your right to be on a waiting for any organ. I don't uderstand how any other way seems even close to reasonable.
|
Can those who vote "No" in the first poll state their reasons? I'm really interested what could make someone not approve of organ donation when the body no longer needs it.
Gotunk, I agree with the opt out = waive formula. Seems perfectly reasonable.
|
I'm an organ donor. If i'm dead they might as well use my organs for someone else to gain.
I agree that everyone should be a 'default' donor unless they opt out. Would provide so many more organs.
|
Proud to live in a country where you are AUTOMATICALLY organ donor. unless you get a document which says otherwise(which except for a few fanatics no one gets)
|
I haven't really thought of this, but while I agree that the automatic organ donor and opting out means disqualification is logical, what happened to free will? What if I don't feel like donating my organs just because. Will the system discriminate me because I choose not to donate my organ?
|
I'll donate mine once I'm dead/braindead, and if a unique situation presents itself I may do so while still alive - it's difficult to say.
On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries.
Is there anything legitimate on this? It seems really conspiracy theory-ish.
|
You should have another vote set up where you ask if someone would accept a donated organ in case they need it. It would be interesting to see if those who vote that don't want to donate their organs are willing to accept an organ from a donator.
When I die I donate as much as possible. I have told the ones closest to me so they know and love so they wouldn't need to think twice if they get that question.
|
In the "con" department. Would we not see less people who donate organs while living because of bad conditions if more "normal" people became organ donors? So it's kinda of a pro, and not a con. ("Flodding the marked with organs!")
|
On March 26 2012 02:41 Reedjr wrote:I'll donate mine once I'm dead/braindead, and if a unique situation presents itself I may do so while still alive - it's difficult to say. Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries.
Is there anything legitimate on this? It seems really conspiracy theory-ish. Read "The Red Market" by Scott Carney.
On March 26 2012 02:42 Batch wrote: You should have another vote set up where you ask if someone would accept a donated organ in case they need it. It would be interesting to see if those who vote that don't want to donate their organs are willing to accept an organ from a donator.
When I die I donate as much as possible. I have told the ones closest to me so they know and love so they wouldn't need to think twice if they get that question. Thanks, I'm also adding one other poll.
On March 26 2012 02:43 Xiphias wrote: In the "con" department. Would we not see less people who donate organs while living because of bad conditions if more "normal" people became organ donors? So it's kinda of a pro, and not a con. ("Flodding the marked with organs!") As long as there are more people being born than dying, I think the need for organ will never be zero or negative.
|
I wish that the Netherlands had an opt-out system for donation, rather than the current opt-in system. We're rather progressive in most areas, but somehow when it comes to organ donation we're lagging behind. I guess it's not enough of an issue for the progressive parties to push it through.
I've registered as donor of course. If my lifeless waste (which is pretty much what it is once you're braindead) can help someone live a longer and better life, then why the hell not?
|
On March 26 2012 02:41 Reedjr wrote:I'll donate mine once I'm dead/braindead, and if a unique situation presents itself I may do so while still alive - it's difficult to say. Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries.
Is there anything legitimate on this? It seems really conspiracy theory-ish. Sounds shady to me as well.
|
I don't think people who opt out as donors should be disqualified but I do think they should get lower priority in case of a queue.
|
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?.
|
There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries. I can attest to that. In 2003-2004, while living in Jordan, there has been a small yet terrifying wave of people being found nearly dead, or already dead, having some of their organs taken away and money dropped on their bodies.
The most disturbing event was a bride which went missing on her wedding day. The next day, she was found dead, with her liver and kindeys taken away, and I believe 2000 or 3000 USD thrown on her body. Turns out for this specific event, and perhaps more of the likes, that some iraqi doctors were doing these actions to sell organs in Iraq during the war, causing misery and benefiting from it. I think one or two doctors were found then, which were directly hanged.
|
This is one of those cases where religion isn't just an "innocent belief" which is sort of life tilting. Refusing to save a life with no harm to yourself is disgusting. The whole attachment to a physical body is irrational anyway, it's just a piece of meat at that point and if it can save another life, it's awesome.
|
I'm a donor, though I can't choose where my organs go without a will I guess, I would prefer my organs go to a dying child than some fat fuck that ruined his first set of kidneys and thinks he's somehow entitled to another pair that he can destroy.
|
On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
Cons [list=ordered][*]The basic con is religion. Jehovah's Witness and Shintoism are two significant religions opposed to organ donation. In Jehovah's Witness, it is not a prohibition on organ donation per se, but on blood transfusion. But since all organ donations require blood transfusion, organ donation is technically prohibited....
Technically accurate but misleading. You can do all sorts of major operations with either cell salvage or other methods of blood saving. There's even a documentary featuring on a liver transplant done without blood transfusion as part of 'Knocking. http://www.knocking.org/Jehovahs_Witness_Blood_Transfusion.html (See Bottom).
For Jehovah's Witnesses, its a personal choice so your claim is misleading.
|
I hope to be a doctor when I grow up and help to save lives or improve the quality of life for some people. That said, I am hesitant about being an organ donor. Right now on my Driver's License, I'm listed as a donor, but I am considering changing that.
It's not a religious thing for me or anything, but I'm just a bit leery of the fact that I will have very little control over who gets my organs. Like, do I want my lung to go to a lifelong smoker who got lung cancer, or my liver to some guy who drank and did drugs? I don't want to provide for some guy who screwed up their first set of organs.
I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation.
|
On March 26 2012 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I hope to be a doctor when I grow up and help to save lives or improve the quality of life for some people. That said, I am hesitant about being an organ donor. Right now on my Driver's License, I'm listed as a donor, but I am considering changing that.
It's not a religious thing for me or anything, but I'm just a bit leery of the fact that I will have very little control over who gets my organs. Like, do I want my lung to go to a lifelong smoker who got lung cancer, or my liver to some guy who drank and did drugs? I don't want to provide for some guy who screwed up their first set of organs.
I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation.
That's some fucked up logic you got going on right there. So what if people made bad choices, do they deserve to die because of it? And what if your organs went to someone who you (who would be dead and couldn't give a fuck anyway) deemed worthy? Yet they wouldn't, because you pussied out.
|
On March 26 2012 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I hope to be a doctor when I grow up and help to save lives or improve the quality of life for some people. That said, I am hesitant about being an organ donor. Right now on my Driver's License, I'm listed as a donor, but I am considering changing that.
It's not a religious thing for me or anything, but I'm just a bit leery of the fact that I will have very little control over who gets my organs. Like, do I want my lung to go to a lifelong smoker who got lung cancer, or my liver to some guy who drank and did drugs? I don't want to provide for some guy who screwed up their first set of organs.
I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation.
Just saying that you don't get an organ if you are a smoker, you'd have to quit beforehand. Same goes with alchoholics and liver transplants.
What makes it a bit harder is that you'd maybe have to transplant a healthy liver into a patient with hepatic cancer and then he is quite likely to have it pop up again.
But then as a doctor, you don't really have a chance. You just help everyone. No questions asked.
"I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation"
this line just strikes me as hypocritical.
/medstudent.
|
There is also the possibility that a doctor might be more interested in the organs of a patient than the patient him/herself.
|
Oh hi, another productive religious discussion.
Yes all healthy corpses should donate their organs to save lives, this one is a no brainer.
|
On March 26 2012 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I hope to be a doctor when I grow up and help to save lives or improve the quality of life for some people. That said, I am hesitant about being an organ donor. Right now on my Driver's License, I'm listed as a donor, but I am considering changing that.
It's not a religious thing for me or anything, but I'm just a bit leery of the fact that I will have very little control over who gets my organs. Like, do I want my lung to go to a lifelong smoker who got lung cancer, or my liver to some guy who drank and did drugs? I don't want to provide for some guy who screwed up their first set of organs.
I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation.
So you want to become a doctor, but you're only willing to help people with a healthy lifestyle?
|
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.
Even if they elect not to donate them for whatever reasons? That just assumes the state/some institude automaticly gets possession of a body...
|
Hypocritical isn't the word, more like cognitive dissonance. Totally appreciate the thinly veiled insults, by the way (to hellroxya).
My friend's uncle had lung cancer and he smoked since he was a teenager. He got a new lung. After a few months, he promptly started smoking again. I do believe if people made a shitty decision like smoking their whole life and they get cancer, they can live without my lung. This kind of situation occurs more than I feel is acceptable.
My best friend is most likely going to die of cancer before we get out of college-- 3 years or so. We both want to be doctors. She is literally one of the kindest and most intelligent people I know. When I know that she's probably screwed while people who smoke and abuse their bodies could get a second chance... it just makes me mad and think about how unfair the world is.
Anyways, my position might change. We'll see.
|
On March 26 2012 03:44 MountainDewJunkie wrote: I'm a donor, though I can't choose where my organs go without a will I guess, I would prefer my organs go to a dying child than some fat fuck that ruined his first set of kidneys and thinks he's somehow entitled to another pair that he can destroy.
Im pretty sure there is a medical board that reviews these things, so organs dont go to people that you described as such. Or I would assume that they are on the very bottom of a very long list.
|
On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote:
Pros [list=ordered][*]In the case of the dead donor, the organ(s) are used to save lives when they would otherwise be useless [*]In the case of the reciever, he will not only get an extention of life, but also an improved quality, as a new organ will help him stay away from mechanical ad chemical interventions to his health
You're listing the same thing twice. First you're saying the organs aren't being wasted. Then you're saying the organs are being put to good use. It comes down to the same thing.
|
[Quote]So what if people made bad choices, do they deserve to die because of it?[/Qoute]Hate to break it for ye, but yes! This is how life works, especially if you made bad choices regarding your health. For example, you have 2 people: the first is a athlete child taking good care of himself, yet has a chronic disorder in his lungs. The other is a 30-ish guy who's been smoking for over 10 years. The physicians will always be hesitant to give the smoker a new set of lungs.
|
On March 26 2012 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Hypocritical isn't the word, more like cognitive dissonance. Totally appreciate the thinly veiled insults, by the way (to hellroxya). . how was his insult veiled at all rofl
|
On March 26 2012 03:49 ticklishmusic wrote: I hope to be a doctor when I grow up and help to save lives or improve the quality of life for some people. That said, I am hesitant about being an organ donor. Right now on my Driver's License, I'm listed as a donor, but I am considering changing that.
It's not a religious thing for me or anything, but I'm just a bit leery of the fact that I will have very little control over who gets my organs. Like, do I want my lung to go to a lifelong smoker who got lung cancer, or my liver to some guy who drank and did drugs? I don't want to provide for some guy who screwed up their first set of organs.
I figure if I save enough lives as a doctor, its okay if I skip out on organ donation.
Even if your organs do go to someone that you don't want them to, you should look at it as your organ donation moves EVERYONE up one spot on the list for an organ. If the alcoholic didn't get your liver he would just get the next guy's liver anyway, and then the dying kid in line behind him will still be waiting.
|
i dont want a doctor not giving his 100% when/if i have an accident just because he knows by letting me die he can save 4 of his other patients.
so no dead live donor for me.
if my family needs a kidney/liver and i can give it with few implications on my health then by all means. although i would prefer to just buy a kidney from the black market or pay some guy a few thousands to let us use his.
health>all if some money can buy me/my family better health and longevity, money or ethics are not a factor.
|
On March 26 2012 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Hypocritical isn't the word, more like cognitive dissonance. Totally appreciate the thinly veiled insults, by the way (to hellroxya).
My friend's uncle had lung cancer and he smoked since he was a teenager. He got a new lung. After a few months, he promptly started smoking again. I do believe if people made a shitty decision like smoking their whole life and they get cancer, they can live without my lung. This kind of situation occurs more than I feel is acceptable.
My best friend is most likely going to die of cancer before we get out of college-- 3 years or so. We both want to be doctors. She is literally one of the kindest and most intelligent people I know. When I know that she's probably screwed while people who smoke and abuse their bodies could get a second chance... it just makes me mad and think about how unfair the world is.
Anyways, my position might change. We'll see.
While your uncle is an ass for starting smoking again I don't really think this is the norm. What of all the other cases where a patient doesn't start doing drugs/smoking/drinking/etc after the transplant and gave them a new shot at life? But then again, I believe young, otherwise health patients have priority over those patients.
Also, what does your friend have to do with the organ donation debate? (I wish her all the best in her recovery!)
edit:
On March 26 2012 04:29 brokor wrote: i dont want a doctor not giving his 100% when/if i have an accident just because he knows by letting me die he can save 4 of his other patients.
I believe this is a faulty view of all health care personel. Do you have any idea of how much work there is in "stripping" a body of organs and then transporting them to needed patients and then implanting it?
|
No proper doctor would let a 'viable' person die because they want the organs, seriously.
|
On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie.
Then don't have kids. But do try to help people if you can. i.e. donate your organs.
On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote:besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Start with your brain, donate it for dog food or something.
|
I don't like the idea of giving other people my blood let alone my post or pre mortum organs. If I'm going to give away my organs I damn well better personally know and approve of the person.
You're not saving someone's life you're prolonging it. And you could be prolonging a complete assholes life.
|
On March 26 2012 04:35 Valashu wrote: No proper doctor would let a 'viable' person die because they want the organs, seriously.
He lives in GREECE dude.
|
I am registered as an organ donor, but if my organs are ever used I do hope the person who recieves them isn't a dick.
|
Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified from receiving organ donation even if they need it? Its not a matter of disqualifying them, though I do believe that non-organ donors should have a lower priority on organ recipient lists.
|
On March 26 2012 04:45 Crushinator wrote: I am registered as an organ donor, but if my organs are ever used I do hope the person who recieves them isn't a dick.
How much of a dick do you have to be to not deserve to live? I would put the bar between blowing up kindergartens and adopting orphans and then sell them as child labour.
Of course we all want the charity for homeless people or little timmy pocket (cit: South park) to get our organs, but i would say we should not deny people life or feel that they do not deserve it because they qualify as dicks in our own minds :D
Anyway, i would gladly donate every part of my body to science/people who need them, as that far surpasses the need my family might find in comfort.
I guess the only alternative would be to live forever :D
To the religioun issue i would propose that there at least should be an 18 year old demand before you should be allowed to deny anyone your organs.
At best it should be illegal to let personal faith, which in my opinion is partly fine (see sig), indirectly kill people.
EDIT:
On March 26 2012 04:53 moopie wrote:Show nested quote +Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified from receiving organ donation even if they need it? Its not a matter of disqualifying them, though I do believe that non-organ donors should have a lower priority on organ recipient lists.
But then you would put an ethical requirement for donor. It would be comparable to puting someone higher up a list who have worked with doctors without borders than a lawyer (:D) I don't think that would be a preferable factor to deny some one life by.
...come to think of it. Aren't they already doing this?
|
Cons 1 and 2 should be a non issue because religious arguments are not reasonable arguments and Con 3 is actually a pro because more ethical correct organ donations mean less unethical donations. Sooo... only pros, yay!
I myself would donate my organs when I'm dead and would do so when I'm alive depending on the situation.
|
Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 04:53 moopie wrote:Should people who opt out as donors be disqualified from receiving organ donation even if they need it? Its not a matter of disqualifying them, though I do believe that non-organ donors should have a lower priority on organ recipient lists. But then you would put an ethical requirement for donor. It would be comparable to puting someone higher up a list who have worked with doctors without borders than a lawyer (:D) I don't think that would be a preferable factor to deny some one life by. ...come to think of it. Aren't they already doing this? Everyone can't be a doctor, but everyone can make the decision to donate their organs.
|
I feel like a hypocrite when i say this but i know i should donate my organs, i'm not a religious person at all so i see no need for my organs when i die. Its mostly the thought of "Shit their going to cut me up and give my body away when i die!" Hopefully in a few years i'll man up and be a organ donor.
|
On March 26 2012 04:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie.
Then don't have kids. But do try to help people if you can. i.e. donate your organs. Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote:besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Start with your brain, donate it for dog food or something. stop being a drone. the more people you have on this earth the less they worth and that is a fact. i just happen to value worth more then numbers. the less, the better. and it's not like i'm doing something to kill those people. bad shit happens, i'm just passive about it.
|
On March 26 2012 06:08 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 04:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie.
Then don't have kids. But do try to help people if you can. i.e. donate your organs. On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote:besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Start with your brain, donate it for dog food or something. stop being a drone. the more people you have on this earth the less they worth and that is a fact. i just happen to value worth more then numbers. the less, the better. and it's not like i'm doing something to kill those people. bad shit happens, i'm just passive about it. Then don't have kids, unless you think your kids are worth more than someone needing a new organ.
|
On March 26 2012 06:08 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 04:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie.
Then don't have kids. But do try to help people if you can. i.e. donate your organs. On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote:besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Start with your brain, donate it for dog food or something. stop being a drone. the more people you have on this earth the less they worth and that is a fact. i just happen to value worth more then numbers. the less, the better. and it's not like i'm doing something to kill those people. bad shit happens, i'm just passive about it.
So out of curiosity are you a person who see's a woman getting assaulted but walks by and just says "Well its not my problem"
|
On March 26 2012 06:08 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 04:35 Dapper_Cad wrote:On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote: nope. i do not want to help with the overpopulation thinggie.
Then don't have kids. But do try to help people if you can. i.e. donate your organs. On March 26 2012 03:26 xM(Z wrote:besides, if there is no free will and everything is predestined, those people are suppose to die, right?. Start with your brain, donate it for dog food or something. stop being a drone. the more people you have on this earth the less they worth and that is a fact. i just happen to value worth more then numbers. the less, the better. and it's not like i'm doing something to kill those people. bad shit happens, i'm just passive about it.
What do you mean by worth? Why does the "worth" of a human increase the fewer there are of us?
|
On March 26 2012 04:34 sJarl wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 04:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Hypocritical isn't the word, more like cognitive dissonance. Totally appreciate the thinly veiled insults, by the way (to hellroxya).
My friend's uncle had lung cancer and he smoked since he was a teenager. He got a new lung. After a few months, he promptly started smoking again. I do believe if people made a shitty decision like smoking their whole life and they get cancer, they can live without my lung. This kind of situation occurs more than I feel is acceptable.
My best friend is most likely going to die of cancer before we get out of college-- 3 years or so. We both want to be doctors. She is literally one of the kindest and most intelligent people I know. When I know that she's probably screwed while people who smoke and abuse their bodies could get a second chance... it just makes me mad and think about how unfair the world is.
Anyways, my position might change. We'll see. While your uncle is an ass for starting smoking again I don't really think this is the norm. What of all the other cases where a patient doesn't start doing drugs/smoking/drinking/etc after the transplant and gave them a new shot at life? But then again, I believe young, otherwise health patients have priority over those patients. Also, what does your friend have to do with the organ donation debate? (I wish her all the best in her recovery!)
Friend's uncle.
Sure, if I could guarantee that the people who got my organs were good people, I'd happily let them have them.
However, that's not the case. Look at America-- why are so many people sick or have various illnesses? Because they don't take care of themselves well. They put all sorts of shit that's clearly bad for them into their bodies, and somehow they feel entitled to getting a new kidney when their old one gives out. I'm not going to provide an organ so they can have a second chance. Real life is real life. You fuck up, you fuck up.
Life is unfair. I'm filled with incredibly bitterness knowing that she's pretty much got a timer on her life, while some other guy is getting a second chance with a new kidney. Unless some magical cure is discovered in the next few years, she will die. We have no illusions about the matter.
Now, science can definitely have my body if they want it. Maybe I'll give myself to Harvard Med School or something.
|
once I dont need it anymore, salvage any spare parts you need guys.
got a pretty good heart btw :D
|
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.
|
United States7483 Posts
I am an organ donor. I live my life in the hopes of making a difference in the lives of others, improving the world in my own way. It is my most fervent wish that I be able to help others in a way as meaningful as life saving even with my death. If removal of every organ in my body can be of help to others after I die, I am more than willing to have every one of them be used, leaving my corpse empty. It is a corpse, I will no longer be alive to care what happens to my body, but if it can help others I am all for it.
|
i have the red sticker on my driver's license. i see no cons to organ donation if i get in an accident. cant take it with you.
|
On March 26 2012 02:26 xpldngmn wrote: Please do not list "religion" as a con. You can't argue with religion, theologic debates are nice to have in their own set of rules, but when it comes to "real life problems", they don't really fit. Why do I argue this way? God told me to do so. He argued that it is against a specific type of people's will, not his own. And that last sentence is so ironic.
|
I read all three cons in the OP and I still fail to see a single con to voluntary organ donation, either living or after death.
I get pretty tired of people suggesting that giving someone the option of voluntary behavior is somehow exploiting them.
|
I have an organ donor sticker on my license, although it goes against my parent's cultural traditions that you must bury the body whole. I either want my organs to be donated, if not, then I want to be cremated. I just don't want my dead body to lay there, dug up, or used in any other way. I also donate blood every year too.
|
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.
|
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.
|
So i am a organ donor and i would be happy to have part of my now useless body help a person in need. 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
|
I too, am a lifetime donor. I think that it is the only morally "good" choice, especially if you do it voluntarily and without expectation of any reward. There is no real con to being an organ donor, but it should not be required to receive because that conflicts with my moral of not imposing my moral standards upon others. Just because someone is not comfortable with donating does not mean they shouldn't be given the best care medicine can provide.
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.
|
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
|
On March 26 2012 07:13 Carson wrote:Show nested quote +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
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)
|
On March 26 2012 07:06 drshdwpuppet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
best book on this subject is by kaserman organ transplant system huge must read
|
@Batch: i don't have kids and i don't plan to have kids. @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.
|
On March 26 2012 07:42 DarkEnergy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 07:06 drshdwpuppet wrote: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. 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?
|
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
|
I really dont understand why people wouldnt be organ donors. When it comes to it ill be dead, my problems will be over, why the fuck would i care what happens to my organs?
|
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.
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.
|
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...
|
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.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
This is a complete myth. Do not spread FUD.
|
On March 26 2012 08:03 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +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
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:Show nested quote +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. 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. 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.
|
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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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.
|
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 how can you be so casual and cool about your sister getting her brain mashed, man. you tell it like its the most normal thing in the world.
having sad that, im so sorry to hear.
|
As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it.
|
On March 26 2012 10:15 divito wrote: As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it. Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion.
|
On March 26 2012 10:15 divito wrote: As much as it seems irrational, I'm against donation because the idea of me becoming less than whole, even in death, doesn't sit right with me. Couldn't really begin to explain why that is, but it's the gut feeling that I have towards it.
But it's your corpse that becomes less whole. So why should that matter? Whatever this sense of "you" is that you're aware of, it's not going to be any less whole without, say, a kidney, after you die, and "you" no longer exists. "You" are just the result of the highly complex and plastic patterns of neuronal signaling and other interactions at the brain. This activity at the brain is enabled by the body, so you should think of it this way instead:
After you die, your body no longer serves a purpose. So it should be used in the best way possible, which is to take it apart and make use of the viable parts, so that others may live. Personally, I think "you" dissipates as you die. As your neural processes cease, so do "you". You are your cognition; conscious, subconscious, and unconscious, all included. So when this ends, you end. I don't object to religion though -- maybe some abstract, non-physical version of "you" exists. Whatever. But still, this abstract thing isn't affected by the body being disassembled. I dunno man, you shouldn't feel attached to your body after you die, and I don't mean that in a literal way
|
Yes I will donate if I die, better put them to use than otherwise decay, No I won't donate them while I am living, hands off my shit, I am still using them, wait for your damn turn.
|
On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
On March 26 2012 10:27 FallDownMarigold wrote: But it's your corpse that becomes less whole. So why should that matter? Whatever this sense of "you" is that you're aware of, it's not going to be any less whole without, say, a kidney, after you die, and "you" no longer exists. "You" are just the result of the highly complex and plastic patterns of neuronal signaling and other interactions at the brain. This activity at the brain is enabled by the body, so you should think of it this way instead:
After you die, your body no longer serves a purpose. So it should be used in the best way possible, which is to take it apart and make use of the viable parts, so that others may live. Personally, I think "you" dissipates as you die. As your neural processes cease, so do "you". You are your cognition; conscious, subconscious, and unconscious, all included. So when this ends, you end. I don't object to religion though -- maybe some abstract, non-physical version of "you" exists. Whatever. But still, this abstract thing isn't affected by the body being disassembled. I dunno man, you shouldn't feel attached to your body after you die, and I don't mean that in a literal way I don't disagree scientifically, or semantically for that matter, it's just my mind's natural reaction to the proposition. As I said, it's an irrational feeling. And perhaps, something that is connected to it, is that I'm afraid of dying. The thought of me, and my consciousness no longer existing is terrifying. Again, irrational. I understand all the alternatives and such, that's just the feeling I have.
|
On March 26 2012 10:45 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist)
|
On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist) I can understand that connection. It's quite odd and I suppose, interesting.
I'm a very logical, philosophical, and science-oriented person; I find it silly that I would hold such an irrational thought because I'm anything but irrational in every other aspect of my life. I understand and agree with the aspects and arguments surrounding it (organ donation, and life/death), but it's just a gut reaction. Perhaps it's some biological imperative towards self-preservation manifesting itself in that feeling and idea.
|
On March 26 2012 10:45 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:25 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Ive also thought of this. Its also interesting that you are not arguing it on the religious perspective. I suspect also that this might be a strong reason why religious people hesitate, because what if the judgment day comes and the dead are brought back. what happens to those with incomplete body parts, or those cremated? Anyway this seems far-fetched. I also dont know exactly about judgment day so Im basing it on popular notion. I don't see why it's interesting that I'm not arguing the religious perspective. Religion, in my opinion, is the result of a lesser mind. I'm not religious in the least.
Yes. Because your justification that you "will not be complete" is not religious. I would assume this is often the argument of people with religious stance, saying that they need to be whole for the resurrection or because the body is holy so it must not be "violated". Since this is not your argument, why do you need a "whole" body as a corpse then?
|
On March 26 2012 10:54 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: You described an irrational belief. Religious beliefs are irrational. He was intrigued that although your position is irrational, it's not supported by a religious argument. I also find it interesting. Usually people who hold irrational beliefs such as "I don't want to donate organs" do so with religious justification, or maybe they actually manage to provide a rational justification anyway (can't name any examples, but maybe some exist) I can understand that connection. It's quite odd and I suppose, interesting. I'm a very logical, philosophical, and science-oriented person; I find it silly that I would hold such an irrational thought because I'm anything but irrational in every other aspect of my life. I understand and agree with the aspects and arguments surrounding it (organ donation, and life/death), but it's just a gut reaction. Perhaps it's some biological imperative towards self-preservation manifesting itself in that feeling and idea.
Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall?
|
On March 26 2012 10:56 Abort Retry Fail wrote: Yes. Because your justification that you "will not be complete" is not religious. I would assume this is often the argument of people with religious stance, saying that they need to be whole for the resurrection or because the body is holy so it must not be "violated". Since this is not your argument, why do you need a "whole" body as a corpse then? If I had to speculate on why I have this feeling (pure speculation), I would say that because I know that a body exists with these components and organs, and having them removed alters what the body is/was. It no longer is a whole body. It's not a matter of a corpse "needing" those parts, it's just a matter of now I know that it is, or will be, missing something, or is "incomplete."
On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall? This discussion would open a whole can of worms if I think about all the implications. Even if I were to ignore the inherent fallacy associated with that argument, I'd have to agree that all aspects of the medical profession can and should happen; I'm not sure that I do.
|
yes when I'm dead i want people to do every good thing they can think of with my body. Parts of my body will help people in need instead of just rotting away.
|
People who don't wanna donate shouldn't receive organs from others. Organ transplant is a life or death situation, not to be deterred by selfishness.
|
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?
|
On March 26 2012 11:04 divito wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 10:48 FallDownMarigold wrote: Well that's totally cool and fine, so let's just put it like this:
Is it really fair to limit the overall chance that others in need of organs may live based off a loose, gut-reaction? We could at least agree that if you decide to opt out of organ donation, you are abnegating any potential opportunity to save a life by organ donation. It seems like choosing to opt out of organ donation, in your case, would be serving your gut-reaction rather than what you know about organ donation and the dramatic effects it has on saving lives. Is that fair, overall? This discussion would open a whole can of worms if I think about all the implications. Even if I were to ignore the inherent fallacy associated with that argument, I'd have to agree that all aspects of the medical profession can and should happen; I'm not sure that I do.
What is the inherent fallacy? By not being an organ donor, you are limiting the amount of organ donors that exist by 1 person -- you. With you as an organ donor, the total organ donor pool increases by 1. More organ donors = more potential organs. More organs = more potential saved lives. The general conclusion I intended to communicate was becoming an organ donor actively helps to save lives, while actively not being an organ donor denies your potential to save lives.
Where am I making a significant mistake? In any case, the point was not to create a perfect argument in accordance with formal logic rules and such - I don't even know anything about that stuff. Finally, you can't praise yourself as a highly logical person, or whatever you were doing a few posts back, when you opt out of organ donation based on a completely irrational belief. Your description to the other guy of organ donation not being right due to leaving the body "not whole" is, in fact, a really good example of illogical thinking. 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.
|
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?
umm?
|
On March 26 2012 11:19 FallDownMarigold wrote: What is the inherent fallacy? Appeal to emotion.
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.
|
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?
No, because everyone's bones are shaped rather differently and because hard tissue is very much so different from hard tissue. Bone isn't a dead piece of calcium, it is very much a living process that is unfortunately very much so tied into immune systems, circulatory systems and a host of other balances. A part of the natural bone upkeep are cells called osteocytes (which act in a way very similar to nervous cells) and other derivatives of osteoprogenitors that would probably experience fairly severe immune responses if merely transplanted into someone else. As it is, to transplant even just bone marrow (which is actually fairly common for disorders of the marrow like certain cancers) usually requires the "nuking" of the host immune system just to have a hope of it taking.
Most bones grow back on their own, even if only partially anyway. For those that don't or those that cant wait (like cranium etc) often a graft from your hip or something can be put in to help along the process of healing. If you are talking about a whole leg bone, you probably have the whole limb gone if your bone is missing or shattered to the extreme length that a whole new bone is necessary.
|
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,
|
I see no reasonable issue with organ donation, but forced extraction can bring up some issues. Taking the organs of people on death row sounds reasonable but straight up killing people for their organs feels like rape to me. You're taking advantage of their body and completely disregarding them as human beings with things like feelings.
|
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.
|
I'd be okay with donating my organs once I die. But I'm not sure I want them to go to just anybody. There probably aren't any useful ways of determining what people are worth an organ and which aren't, but I hope society prioritizes important people (doctors, scientists, artists) over delinquents and criminals. But then again you never know when those people could turn their life around and do something amazing; although I guess the chances are lower.
Anyways I agree with all this "its rational" stuff. You pretty much have to suck it up even if you don't like it, and go with what makes sense. You're dead, you don't need it . And if you were to continue existing, I think its clear that you wouldn't need your body anymore (because your body remains, cold and dead/decaying in a coffin). If people believed in an afterlife it wouldn't have a use for your organs!
|
Guys I have a problem, that's why I asked about bone donations.
In october 2010 I broke my left arm practicing Judo, it was a normal fracture I went to the hospital to get a surgery where they put metal nails to fix the broken bones, cubitus and radius broke around half... I had a staph infection after the surgery, the doctor who did the surgery [I live in venezuela] said I had nothing and that it would go away without giving me antibiotics or anything, about 2 and a half months after the infection I started taking antibiotics but it wasn't until the end of May next year that I had a second surgery to repair the damage... apparently I had ostiomielitis at this point but after expensive exams they said it wasn't the case, they did remove the surface of the bone but didn't cut it completely, they took the metal plates because they were infected and the bone didn't heal [in was in the air, broken still], so they put metal nail-holders close to the wrist and elbow to hold the bone in place and it grew back, these were removed 3 months later.
Then on december 2011 I fell for the first time since the second surgery and my arm was broken again, in about the same place but this time the bones were in the original position, the doctor said it was no problem after 4-6 weeks I'd be fine but he was drunk [can happend in venezuela] and the 'plaster' or whatever the name is material used to hold the bones in place weren't set correctly, so the bones moved of their original place, with X-rays it was clear I needed a third surgery, I rejected it because these savages didn't have the equipment to do it but wanted to do it anyways... [at this point you're wondering why I haven't sued them, well there's no such thing as suing for wrong-practice in Venezuela, there is... but so hard to prove it's impossible to enforce, literally]. They said my bones wouldn't heal at this point, they actually did, so my arm now looks like an S or a C depending on perspective and with so much scars I could probably inspire a Marilyn Manson music video because I can scare both kids and adults.
Anyways doctors said they need to cut between 3.5 to 4 cm (inch and a half) from both bones because I have "osteoarthorsis" [name in english could be osteoarthritis I think] now, they'll cut bones from my waist and implant it in the arm but I'll end up with the arm about almost an inch shorter, and they lacked the equipment to do it anyways, so I rejected the surgery like I said before. Now I want to know if I can buy synthetic material or get bone donation from a dead donor or something because I really really really want to at least have an arm of the same size... please help me out It's hard to search info about this in the internet because I have to use medical names for all of this which I don't know at all it's hard for me, tell me what you think about it. I hope that syntethic material could be used, apparently it's pretty good =/ and I do have people that could buy it in the US or something...
|
On March 26 2012 23:28 Nevermind86 wrote: Guys I have a problem, that's why I asked about bone donations.
In october 2010 I broke my left arm practicing Judo, it was a normal fracture I went to the hospital to get a surgery where they put metal nails to fix the broken bones, cubitus and radius broke around half... I had a staph infection after the surgery, the doctor who did the surgery [I live in venezuela] said I had nothing and that it would go away without giving me antibiotics or anything, about 2 and a half months after the infection I started taking antibiotics but it wasn't until the end of May next year that I had a second surgery to repair the damage... apparently I had ostiomielitis at this point but after expensive exams they said it wasn't the case, they did remove the surface of the bone but didn't cut it completely, they took the metal plates because they were infected and the bone didn't heal [in was in the air, broken still], so they put metal nail-holders close to the wrist and elbow to hold the bone in place and it grew back, these were removed 3 months later.
Then on december 2011 I fell for the first time since the second surgery and my arm was broken again, in about the same place but this time the bones were in the original position, the doctor said it was no problem after 4-6 weeks I'd be fine but he was drunk [can happend in venezuela] and the 'plaster' or whatever the name is material used to hold the bones in place weren't set correctly, so the bones moved of their original place, with X-rays it was clear I needed a third surgery, I rejected it because these savages didn't have the equipment to do it but wanted to do it anyways... [at this point you're wondering why I haven't sued them, well there's no such thing as suing for wrong-practice in Venezuela, there is... but so hard to prove it's impossible to enforce, literally]. They said my bones wouldn't heal at this point, they actually did, so my arm now looks like an S or a C depending on perspective and with so much scars I could probably inspire a Marilyn Manson music video because I can scare both kids and adults.
Anyways doctors said they need to cut between 3.5 to 4 cm (inch and a half) from both bones because I have "osteoarthorsis" [name in english could be osteoarthritis I think] now, they'll cut bones from my waist and implant it in the arm but I'll end up with the arm about almost an inch shorter, and they lacked the equipment to do it anyways, so I rejected the surgery like I said before. Now I want to know if I can buy synthetic material or get bone donation from a dead donor or something because I really really really want to at least have an arm of the same size... please help me out It's hard to search info about this in the internet because I have to use medical names for all of this which I don't know at all it's hard for me, tell me what you think about it. I hope that syntethic material could be used, apparently it's pretty good =/ and I do have people that could buy it in the US or something...
Is Google blocked in Venezuela? I understand there are issues there, and perhaps I've heard that certain things are censored on the internet. Anyway, I'm asking because your question of whether or not it's scientifically possible to do bone grafts with donor or synthetic sources can be answered with a Google search.
For this kind of general question, this method is really useful to know about: bone grafting information After it does its thing, you should see a few general starting points for info on bone grafts. I found all the basic answers about bone grafting on the wiki link, but that's just one of many. You'll find that yes, it's possible to do bone grafting with your own bones, bones from donor sources (even animals in certain scenarios), or fake/synthetic bone materials.
With regard to seeking specific medical advice, such as "You should choose to suggest to your surgeons X material for Y procedure", there's no way any anonymous person on the internet can reliably offer you anything official, based on your loosely-written anecdote, on which you can safely make a decision. People here can inform you that certain technologies exist, or that it's possible to do bone grafting with synthetic material to be specific, but no one can tell you what to do based on your situation.
|
Pictures? Xray?
I'm far from a medical expert or medical student but pictures might help you in case someone here could guide you to some help. Also try to research 3D Printing. I can't remember exactly, but I heard a news not so long ago of success in use of 3D Printing in bone operation, or something. GL to you.
|
On March 26 2012 22:42 radscorpion9 wrote:I'd be okay with donating my organs once I die. But I'm not sure I want them to go to just anybody. There probably aren't any useful ways of determining what people are worth an organ and which aren't, but I hope society prioritizes important people (doctors, scientists, artists) over delinquents and criminals. But then again you never know when those people could turn their life around and do something amazing; although I guess the chances are lower. Anyways I agree with all this "its rational" stuff. You pretty much have to suck it up even if you don't like it, and go with what makes sense. You're dead, you don't need it . And if you were to continue existing, I think its clear that you wouldn't need your body anymore (because your body remains, cold and dead/decaying in a coffin). If people believed in an afterlife it wouldn't have a use for your organs!
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.
|
First of all, here's something for Nevermind86, double arm transplant. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7537897.stm
There might be a misunderstanding about when someone is a viable organ donor. The critical thing is that doctors have to be able to get to your organs when they're very fresh. This usually means you died in surgery or experienced head trauma and are kept alive through machines; you're a beating-heart cadaver (BHC).
And here is my concern, the level of brain-death required is actually not zero. They don't check whether you have higher brain function, they check if you have use of your brain stem. In fact, there is sometimes higher brain function, but without the brain stem you can't interact with the world.
This is apparently what happens to test for brain death:
A doctor splashes ice water in your ears (to look for shivering in the eyes), pokes your eyes with a cotton swab and checks for any gag reflex, among other rudimentary tests. It takes less time than a standard eye exam. Finally, in what's called the apnea test, the ventilator is disconnected to see if you can breathe unassisted. If not, you are brain dead. (Some or all of the above tests are repeated hours later for confirmation.)
During this procedure, the patient isn't even given anesthesia, which doesn't seem weird until they react to soaring heart-rates, much like inadequately anesthetized 'live' patients.
I am a donor but might cancel so I have a bit more control over my rights during a harvest. I would donate an organ while living to someone I knew (I'm an identical twin). I would accept an organ transplant if required. I don't think others should be disqualified from organ transplant under any circumstances (since, as mentioned above, it moves the entire list up) unless it goes against their religious beliefs.
+ Show Spoiler +
And for anyone who doesn't know about it yet: Heart in a Box
|
Probably wont donate my organs, at least not for free Maybe if they could sell them in my name , so that my offspring could inherit the proceeds. Am actually somewhat suprised that this has not been monetised yet. It would cost monney but it could greatly increase the amount of organs available. In the end it could benefit everyone.
|
I have no interest in being an organ donor at the moment for a myriad of reasons that matter to me. Unfortunately, these days people are getting a hard time for not wanting to be an organ donor, I hope everyone doesn't forget that anyone's choice is their own, it's their body and whether or not they become a donor is for every individual to decide. Debating about it is fine, outright hostility and contempt isn't.
|
Everyone who disagrees with the idea of organ donor-ship is a complete and utter moron.
A mystical man in the sky doesn't justify you not giving a person a chance at a life.
|
On March 27 2012 02:23 MaddogStarCraft wrote: Everyone who disagrees with the idea of organ donor-ship is a complete and utter moron.
A mystical man in the sky doesn't justify you not giving a person a chance at a life.
Your assumption that the person disagreeing with the idea has to be doing so out of religious consideration says a lot about your personality. There is no possible way for anyone to call people that don't agree with donorship morons and be justified in that. The fact that you do so means you are deluding yourself, and probably lie to yourself all the time in order to get your views and points across.
|
On March 26 2012 02:57 Abort Retry Fail wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 02:41 Reedjr wrote:I'll donate mine once I'm dead/braindead, and if a unique situation presents itself I may do so while still alive - it's difficult to say. On March 26 2012 02:21 fYlddnaHturtDyaWdmAi wrote: There are plenty of individual reports but not much thorough research and investigation, but many deaths and reports of being missing, especially amonng children in third world countries, are suspected to be killed to have their organs extracted to be given to rich people in the US and other first world countries.
Is there anything legitimate on this? It seems really conspiracy theory-ish. Sounds shady to me as well. No. It's very true. I went on vacation in the Middle East once as a child (I was 8 years old), and this man comes in a big semi in front of our big home (no neighbors) and yells for me to come to him as I was outside playing. My cousins who were born there quickly jump and yelled for me to run inside the house. I later learned that there have been reports around the area of people being kidnapped to have their organs extracted.
|
Pros: You can save lives when yours is already ended anyways
Cons: None, and if you can put religion under cons that means you are saying religion is detrimental to the world.
|
If I die, take the organs away, I would do the same to you =) burn the rest
PS: Only real problem, is corruption amognst the very doctors and buroucrats that are supposed to make this work properly
|
On March 27 2012 01:18 Rassy wrote: Probably wont donate my organs, at least not for free Maybe if they could sell them in my name , so that my offspring could inherit the proceeds. Am actually somewhat suprised that this has not been monetised yet. It would cost monney but it could greatly increase the amount of organs available. In the end it could benefit everyone.
What how why ?
"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.
"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 ?
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...
|
How can "Religion" be a con? That just seems like people believing that human life should be limited. For me personally, I hope my body is butchered up when I die, and every last little bit that is useful is used in the best way possible.
|
i honestly don't give a shit about what happens to the earth when i die, nor do i give a shit about any random potential recipients of my organs. i'd like to donate my organs, but only in order to not get asked why i'm not donating my organs, because it'd be a whole long stupid discussion. i don't see saving lives as generally good, because i don't respect the majority of people. i'd save a lot of grief of friends and family of the organ recipients, but i don't see how grief is necessarily bad either. there's no guarantee the life i'd be saving is someone i respect. you could make the argument that i "should" help save lives that i don't respect, but idontgiveafuck about them, so there's no emotional impetus on that front. that "should" is still grounded in some moral system i don't believe in.
incidentally, my dad is a bit of a conspiracy theorist and made me choose to not list myself as an organ donor on my driver's license because of reasons mentioned earlier in this thread (that doctors might kill a braindead or vegetative me in order to get my organs), but i figure if i make it to a vegetative or braindead state, i don't necessarily want to live, and any conscious desire (if i'm still somehow conscious ala locked-in syndrome) would probably have come from pure survival instinct, which isn't necessarily a guide i want to listen to.
i think my views are really similar to divito's, i'm just elaborating on them from a different front
|
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?.
That second argument is a strange one. Couldn't you say that about any kind of medicine?
I will, of course, donate my organs. I won't be needing them.
|
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.
|
To be honest, since this thread started and with the replies I'm reading, I'm beginning to understand those who, not trolling, express that they are against it because it is their choice, reason or not. To think that this even goes against my basic ethical/mora perspective that people should care for each other in every way possible. I'm beginning to question the notion of donation to save lives, which someone earlier labelled as a fallacy of ad misericodiam. Really, this primordial obligation does not seem first nature now. I'm not saying this is my final take on it, I'm just in a state of "confusion" right now. Wait a minute, I have to reflect on this and clear my mind.
|
My mum received a double lung transplant last year and I can't express in words how thankful I was to the family who donated the lungs.
I respect people's individual decisions, but I would implore all of you who post here to seriously consider doing it and let your family know of your wishes.
|
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.
|
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
|
On March 27 2012 00:36 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On March 26 2012 22:42 radscorpion9 wrote:I'd be okay with donating my organs once I die. But I'm not sure I want them to go to just anybody. There probably aren't any useful ways of determining what people are worth an organ and which aren't, but I hope society prioritizes important people (doctors, scientists, artists) over delinquents and criminals. But then again you never know when those people could turn their life around and do something amazing; although I guess the chances are lower. Anyways I agree with all this "its rational" stuff. You pretty much have to suck it up even if you don't like it, and go with what makes sense. You're dead, you don't need it . And if you were to continue existing, I think its clear that you wouldn't need your body anymore (because your body remains, cold and dead/decaying in a coffin). If people believed in an afterlife it wouldn't have a use for your organs! 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.
|
On March 27 2012 23:15 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 00:36 Crisco wrote:On March 26 2012 22:42 radscorpion9 wrote:I'd be okay with donating my organs once I die. But I'm not sure I want them to go to just anybody. There probably aren't any useful ways of determining what people are worth an organ and which aren't, but I hope society prioritizes important people (doctors, scientists, artists) over delinquents and criminals. But then again you never know when those people could turn their life around and do something amazing; although I guess the chances are lower. Anyways I agree with all this "its rational" stuff. You pretty much have to suck it up even if you don't like it, and go with what makes sense. You're dead, you don't need it . And if you were to continue existing, I think its clear that you wouldn't need your body anymore (because your body remains, cold and dead/decaying in a coffin). If people believed in an afterlife it wouldn't have a use for your organs! 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. 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
|
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...
|
What how why ?
"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!
|
On March 27 2012 23:15 RaiderRob wrote:Show nested quote +On March 27 2012 00:36 Crisco wrote:On March 26 2012 22:42 radscorpion9 wrote:I'd be okay with donating my organs once I die. But I'm not sure I want them to go to just anybody. There probably aren't any useful ways of determining what people are worth an organ and which aren't, but I hope society prioritizes important people (doctors, scientists, artists) over delinquents and criminals. But then again you never know when those people could turn their life around and do something amazing; although I guess the chances are lower. Anyways I agree with all this "its rational" stuff. You pretty much have to suck it up even if you don't like it, and go with what makes sense. You're dead, you don't need it . And if you were to continue existing, I think its clear that you wouldn't need your body anymore (because your body remains, cold and dead/decaying in a coffin). If people believed in an afterlife it wouldn't have a use for your organs! 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.
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.
|
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.
|
On April 30 2012 20:40 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +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-rI 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%.
|
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. :/
|
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?
|
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.
|
I think the only real con to organ donation is the fact that it slows the advancement of artificial organ replacements... but than again, the more organ transplants we do the more we learn about how to do them/deal with the aftermath which to some extent, i would imagine, translates in us knowing how to integrate a machine in a body if need be.
|
On March 27 2012 22:58 DemonDeacon wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
On April 30 2012 20:40 Voltaire wrote:Show nested quote +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-rI 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Opt-out organ donation can be a potential solution, but it does bring up the issue of governments overstepping their bounds (i.e we own your body until you say otherwise). That may just be me though, as the system does run without problems in many European countries. Sweden though is notable for having an opt-out system and low rate of donors. Maybe an exception to rule? Spain does quite well in terms of organ donations, with an opt-out system and a relatively high rate of families granting consent at time of death, so community values and cultural differences do make an impact on Opt-out systems.
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
|
Ah, good. Ban religion and force everyone to donate organs when they are pronounced dead - problem solved.
+ 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).
|
I think you have to be a deeply, deeply immoral person to refuse to give your organs when you die. Whatever selfish reasons you may have are just not justified at all.
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.
|
|
|
|