NationStates Jolt Archive

This Friday (20:30, Netherlands 3) the Dutch public TV broadcaster BNN is going to broadcast "The Great Donor Show".

In the live television programme, the terminally ill 37-year old Lisa will decide who out of three young kidney patients will get her kidney. Viewers can help her decide using SMS voting.

The show it has been criticised by doctors and Christian Democrats for being about ratings. BNN parried this criticism, saying that even if it is "super-controversial" it is intended to raise awareness about organ donation. The young kidney-patients on the show have a 33% chance of getting a kidney - far higher than their odds on an official waiting list.

According to the law, people can decide to give their organs to a specific person if there is a clear connection between them. BNN claims this will be accomplished by giving Lisa an analysis of their life so far, and by having her talk to their families and friends.

I like.

EDIT: BBC News article on the subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm)

Excellent idea. People that consider it repulsive can simply make the program obsolete by promoting organdonation. Starting with themselves of course.

Excellent idea. People that consider it repulsive can simply make the program obsolete by promoting organdonation. Starting with themselves of course.
QFT.

It's a good idea.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.

Why? Sure, it is a publicity stunt, but if it raises awareness it pays for itself.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.

Why ? If they simply would stay on the official waitinglist the non-winning contestants would die anyway with very little attention for their fate, except in some statistics very few people notice. This way they at least get a decent shot at survival, as well as creating mass attention.

A detail that should be mentioned is that BNN was founded by a kidney patient, who died 5 years ago. This show is dedicated to him.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.Why, you may choose who you give organs to.

Google says:

Your search - "The great donor show" - did not match any documents.

Care to show us the website for this show? Or a Dutch news article? Anything?

http://www.nu.nl/news/1090754/11/CDA_wil_dat_BNN_stopt_met_donorshow_%28video%29.html

Yeah or alternatively This article (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/ln_binnenland/article719105.ece/BNN_zendt_donorshow_ondanks_kritiek_uit) or this article (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article719109.ece/CDA_wil_donorshow_verbieden)

Obviously "the great donor show" is an English translation. *roll*

Since I'm an American I've never heard anything about this. But do none of you consider the idea of a television broadcast in whcch viewrs watch a dying woman decide which dying young person will survive and which will die, to be at least a little bit in bad taste?

http://www.nu.nl/news/1090754/11/CDA_wil_dat_BNN_stopt_met_donorshow_%28video%29.html

Dammit. You know, I eloquently phrased my opinion over three paragraphs before deleting it in favor of a cynical request for proof of this show's existence.

I'll paraphrase: It's cruel, but I don't care enough to feel strongly about it; I'm saving my own organs for my boyfriend or for money.

Since I'm an American I've never heard anything about this. But do none of you consider the idea of a television broadcast in whcch viewrs watch a dying woman decide which dying young person will survive and which will die, to be at least a little bit in bad taste?We brought you 'Big Brother' and 'American Idol'.

Yeah or alternatively This article (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/ln_binnenland/article719105.ece/BNN_zendt_donorshow_ondanks_kritiek_uit) or this article (http://www.trouw.nl/laatstenieuws/laatstenieuws/article719109.ece/CDA_wil_donorshow_verbieden)

Obviously "the great donor show" is an English translation. *roll*

Apparently not that good of one, either.

Since I'm an American I've never heard anything about this. But do none of you consider the idea of a television broadcast in whcch viewrs watch a dying woman decide which dying young person will survive and which will die, to be at least a little bit in bad taste?

Not as bad taste as them all dying needlessly without anybody caring and/or attempting to prevent it.

Why?

Participating in a cruel display where a mob gets to decide on the medical fate of dying people? Oh, silly me, how could I ever think that unethical. :rolleyes:

Sure, it is a publicity stunt, but if it raises awareness it pays for itself.

Good intentions do not excuse horrible acts. If anyone should know that, you'd think it would be doctors.

Apparently not that good of one, either.
A literal one.

Good intentions do not excuse horrible acts. If anyone should know that, you'd think it would be doctors.

I don't know how the organ donor system is in the Netherlands, but over here it is pretty ridiculous. Maybe they are trying to make a point or raise awareness.

I don't know how the organ donor system is in the Netherlands, but over here it is pretty ridiculous. Maybe they are trying to make a point or raise awareness.Read the OP.;)

Dammit. You know, I eloquently phrased my opinion over three paragraphs before deleting it in favor of a cynical request for proof of this show's existence.

I'll paraphrase: It's cruel, but I don't care enough to feel strongly about it; I'm saving my own organs for my boyfriend or for money.

I"d say that you are the unethical one then, not the makers of this show. And, erm, questioning the shows existence is just, well, retarded. Nor do I see anything wrong with my translation. It's a literal translation. /shrug.

Fass: From a Utilitarian perspective it is perfectly ethical. It is no less cruel than people who don't want to donate their organs on account of "I want money for them" or "it feels icky" whilst desperate people are dying on a government waiting list.

Sure, it is shocking. But perhaps shock is what people need to decide to become donors.

Since I'm an American I've never heard anything about this. But do none of you consider the idea of a television broadcast in whcch viewrs watch a dying woman decide which dying young person will survive and which will die, to be at least a little bit in bad taste?

Not if it helps other people live, no.

Fass: From a Utilitarian perspective it is perfectly ethical.

Utilitarianism is the refuge of idiots who cannot see past their own nose.

Utilitarianism is the refuge of idiots who cannot see past their own nose.

So I take it you would prefer them to all die and become statistics ?
The kidney patients that is.

Utilitarianism is the refuge of idiots who cannot see past their own nose.

Just as personal attacks are the refuge for those who do not have rational arguments? ;)

Obviously "the great donor show" is an English translation. *roll*

*Tries to guess the dutch*

Het Graande Donner-Shoe?

Seriously though: what are the odds that this will all be revealed as a publicity stunt come broadcast time and that the donor isn't in fact terminally ill?

*Tries to guess the dutch*

Het Graande Donner-Shoe?
'De Grote Donor Show', that wasn't hard.:p

So I take it you would prefer them to all die and become statistics ?

I would prefer that medical need be the deciding factor in who gets a kidney, not a cheap PR stunt of a popularity contest where they have to grovel before someone's deluded sense of pity.

Not to mention, of course, that your dichotomy is a false one since not getting a kidney != dying.

Het Graande Donner-Shoe?

Nope ;)

As an aside: questioning the shows existence is not that silly. The BNN website itself primarily calls it a documentary about its founder - not a gameshow.

Utilitarianism is the refuge of idiots who cannot see past their own nose.
Participating in a cruel display where a mob gets to decide on the medical fate of dying people? Oh, silly me, how could I ever think that unethical.

Maybe they need a kidney? What would their chances be on the basic waiting list? She donates her kidney to the basic system and it goes to some one higher in the list and they may not really be any closer to getting one.

Just as personal attacks are the refuge for those who do not have rational arguments? ;)

If you've a need to feel struck by the comment, do not blame me for that sorry state.

it is intended to raise awareness about organ donation.

:rolleyes:

I would prefer that medical need be the deciding factor in who gets a kidney, not a cheap PR stunt of a popularity contest where they have to grovel before someone's deluded sense of pity.
The medical need is probably equal in the contestants.

Not to mention, of course, that your dichotomy is a false one since not getting a kidney != dying.
Uncertain. It is however indeed quite likely they would "merely" require regular visits to a hospital and have a shorter lifespan.

However, change the organ to a heart and the dichotomy is valid again. Is it still wrong ?

I would prefer that medical need be the deciding factor in who gets a kidney, not a cheap PR stunt of a popularity contest where they have to grovel before someone's deluded sense of pity.

I don't recall them saying where they are on the transplant list. Or you explaining how the Dutch system works.

If you've a need to feel struck by the comment, do not blame me for that sorry state.

I'm not struck. I'm just pointing out your argument is piss-weak.

Maybe they need a kidney? What would their chances be on the basic waiting list? She donates her kidney to the basic system and it goes to some one higher in the list and they may not really be any closer to getting one.

There is a reason someone is higher on the list. So not only does this cruel show constitute a gross ethical violation in and of itself, it will also cost someone needier than them a kidney.

'De Grote Donor Show', that wasn't hard.:p

Yeah, as if 'Dutch' is a real language.

All it is is badly typed English.

Honest question: do you actually call it 'Dutch'?

Nope ;)

As an aside: questioning the shows existence is not that silly. The BNN website itself primarily calls it a documentary about its founder - not a gameshow.

This is how Bart would have wanted it. :)

BNN often picks controversial topics, but they tend to deal with them in a pragmatic way.

There is a reason someone is higher on the list.
Being on it longer?

So not only does this cruel show constitute a gross ethical violation in and of itself, it will also cost someone needier than them a kidney.
Point out in the article where it says where these people are on the list. And while you're at it, explain how the Dutch system works.

I'm not struck. I'm just pointing out your argument is piss-weak.

While you on the other hand have no argument. No, in medicine "the ultimate evil is excused by the bestest of intentions" is not an argument this side of Mengele.

I"d say that you are the unethical one then, not the makers of this show. And, erm, questioning the shows existence is just, well, retarded. Nor do I see anything wrong with my translation. It's a literal translation. /shrug.

Fass: From a Utilitarian perspective it is perfectly ethical. It is no less cruel than people who don't want to donate their organs on account of "I want money for them" or "it feels icky" whilst desperate people are dying on a government waiting list.

Sure, it is shocking. But perhaps shock is what people need to decide to become donors.

My ethics typically do not concern humans. I questioned the validity of your post because you didn't provide any sources, and it wouldn't be the first time someone on NS tried something stupid like that under the guise of a "social experiment" (un?)fortunately that was not the case here.

And as long as we're talking about utilitarianism, what do I get back from throwing my body parts around? The only way I'm going to give something out for free is if I know for sure that it's going to someone or something worthwhile; I'd donate my organs if I could get them given only to, say, game wardens, or members of Hawkwatch, or similar things.

I mean, god. I'm not going to have my corpse hacked open and hollowed out just to give what's left of my salt-bloated insides to someone I'd just as soon kick in the crotch if I met them while I were living. Does that mean I'd want to see that same person strung about with false hope in front of millions of fickle TV viewers?

Well, okay. Probably. But I don't know the contestants yet.

In any case, on the wider topic of organ donation, I've gone most my life getting flack from the majority because I believe in a rather niche cause. I had steaks waved in front of me when I was a vegetarian, chicken waved in front of me when I narrowed my focus, and I still have to deal with airplane bird-strike jokes every damn day. I know that's a little off topic, but my point is this: Why should I, why should any of us, give our organs away when they may very well go to someone, or the family of someone, that we hate?

"Thanks for the life of mockery and suffering that finally drove me to blow my brains out, here's a kidney so you can torment some other poor bastard for ten more years."

Bah, organ donation. See if you can do what I want done and get buried in the woods. That way your organs will break down, become part of the soil and perhaps grow to feed and become part of a massive, stately oak. Trees, at least, aren't jerks.

Except palms. Don't get me started on those damn palms.

Yeah, as if 'Dutch' is a real language.

All it is is badly typed English.

Honest question: do you actually call it 'Dutch'?

We call it 'Nederlands', we're not that stupid...:p

But you do have discovered our secret.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.

QFT.

Holy fuck.

And while you're at it, explain how the Dutch system works.

While standing on a windmill, dope smoking prostitutes throw clogs with the names of potential recipients written on them into a canal, and whichever clog floats down to the dyke first wins the organ?

While you on the other hand have no argument. No, in medicine "the ultimate evil is excused by the bestest of intentions" is not an argument this side of Mengele.

While it could be argued that the format is degrading to the patients, it is hardly "the ultimate evil" - the comparison to Mengele fails to materialise. Nor does "degrading" equal "unethical". Your beloved Eurovision Songfestival would be quite unethical, by that standard.

While standing on a windmill, dope smoking prostitutes throw clogs with the names of potential recipients written on them into a canal, and whichever clog floats down to the dyke first wins the organ?
How'd you guessed?:eek:

While standing on a windmill, dope smoking prostitutes throw clogs with the names of potential recipients written on them into a canal, and whichever clog floats down to the dyke first wins the organ?

You forgot the tulips in the prostitutes arses and their same-sex spouses fanning the clogs forward.

We call it 'Nederlands', we're not that stupid...:p

But you do have discovered our secret.

Fools. It's Hollish. You know. Holland.

Being on it longer?

Duration is only a small part of the assessment criteria. Medical need in the form of symptoms, risks, age, severity, ability to cope, ability to manage an arduous procedure, willingness to stick to an almost militarily strict treatment plan for the rest of their lives... and so on and so forth tend to be what transplant priority lists are all about. This sidesteps need completely and goes to who is better at currying base sympathy - it is in my eyes abomination.

Point out in the article where it says where these people are on the list.

I see no article in the OP.

And while you're at it, explain how the Dutch system works.

I am not Dutch, but there are certain international standards of priority assessment. I am sure you can google them all by yourself.

While you on the other hand have no argument. No, in medicine "the ultimate evil is excused by the bestest of intentions" is not an argument this side of Mengele.

The contestants are all choosing to participate. The woman donating the organ has a legal right to decide who she gives it to.
Where is the ultimate evil ? Does your opinion on how these people should behave override theirs ?

I see no article in the OP.
What about the three others linked?

The contestants are all choosing to participate. The woman donating the organ has a legal right to decide who she gives it to.
Where is the ultimate evil ? Does your opinion on how these people should behave override theirs ?
Of course it does because Fass is the paragon of ethical and proper behavior and as such his opinion is the overriding factor on all decisions made that have an ethical part to them.

The contestants are all choosing to participate. The woman donating the organ has a legal right to decide who she gives it to.
Where is the ultimate evil ? Does your opinion on how these people should behave override theirs ?

Since when does she have a right to do anything of the sort?

And in this case, Fass' "opinion" is that organ donation should not be a matter of anyone's opinion but solely of medical need, so yes.

The moment we start awarding organs by merit, we've lost our humanity.
You're gonna decide "worthiness" based on if the potential recipient is a young athlete with a promising career, an intelligent kid on his way to big things, a lovely young girl that's so pretty? And leave the kid that rather sits at home reading or playing computer, that is fetching Bs and Cs instead of straight As, and the homely girl to die because they just didn't cut it?
And you seriously don't see the problem with this?

And if you're gonna answer this with one of the "Sure! Natural Selection FTW!" inanities that are so common on here, don't even bother. I just hope that you never get decide over helping anybody with anything, and that you or your maybe-not-quite-worthy loved ones never need help.

The only thing that should influence who gets an organ is how more urgently they need one from a medical standpoint.

While it could be argued that the format is degrading to the patients,

And is costing a kidney to someone more needy...

it is hardly "the ultimate evil"

Oh, it's very much close to it, where the mob decides who gets treatment and who doesn't.

- the comparison to Mengele fails to materialise.

Yeah, it isn't like he worked within a system that let a majority prey on a minority, those better off dictate conditions of those worse off, or anything... but, what would the Dutch know about things like those? They were so good at protecting the needy of Srebrenica, after all...

Nor does "degrading" equal "unethical".

The vile degradation is only part of the issue - the bigger picture is things like disregard for need, PR tricks and profitability, mob rule...

Your beloved Eurovision Songfestival would be quite unethical, by that standard.

Such luck for me, then, that it does not need to meet medical standards, no?

Since when does she have a right to do anything of the sort?

Reread the OP. It is mentioned there.

And you seriously don't see the problem with this?

I do. That is why I hope this show attracts more donors.

Since when does she have a right to do anything of the sort?
Since Dutch law says so?:confused:

Reread the OP. It is mentioned there.

Since Dutch law says so?:confused:

Gah. >.<

They were so good at protecting the needy of Srebrenica, after all...Please explain how this is relevant to the topic.

And is costing a kidney to someone more needy...
You presume the people participating arn't needy and that the woman was going to donate it to the standard system in the first place. Unless of course you have proof of both facts which in that case I suggest you share.


Oh, it's very much close to it, where the mob decides who gets treatment and who doesn't.
Is this removing them from the standard list? You might have to prove that too.
Plus, it's the "mob" helping to decide who gets immediate treatment.


The vile degradation is only part of the issue - the bigger picture is things like disregard for need, PR tricks and profitability, mob rule...
Again, prove that these people don't really need the kidney. PR tricks? If it encourages people to donate to the actual system, I fail to see the problem.

The contestants are all choosing to participate.

Because we all know that taking advantage of desperation is such a noble act... oh, who am I kidding? One need only stroll through the red light district in Amsterdam to see how lightly such things are taken over there. My mistake; I forget the already low standards one has to deal with.

Because we all know that taking advantage of desperation is such a noble act... oh, who am I kidding? One need only stroll through the red light district in Amsterdam to see how lightly such things are taken over there. My mistake; I forget the already low standards one has to deal with.

*raises eyebrow*
Feel free to suggest better alternatives ?

What, noone read my angry and bitter rant?

I have feelings too, you know.

not getting a kidney != dying.

Because we all know that taking advantage of desperation is such a noble act...
So I guess they aren't that desperate after all....

What, noone read my angry and bitter rant?

I have feelings too, you know.

Well, I think you are being a dick. But that would be flaming.

*raises eyebrow*
Feel free to suggest better alternatives ?
To "raise awareness for organ donation"? Well, I'm afraid you'll just have to go with the same old, same old.

Charity donations for starving African kids would doubtlessly hit a new high if we let one of them starve to death on live TV, just one, just once, come on, they'd have died anyway!

And yet we don't.

Well, I think you are being a dick. But that would be flaming.

I'm not being a dick, I'm preventing an alternative, more independent world view.

I'm not being a dick, I'm preventing an alternative, more independent world view.

A dickish world view, if you will.

A dickish world view, if you will.

I prefer "hawkish."

:rolleyes: dum just dum

I prefer "hawkish."

I still prefer dickish, so I hold that we disagree on the matter.

To "raise awareness for organ donation"? Well, I'm afraid you'll just have to go with the same old, same old.

Well, that and all the other problems with the Netherlands Fass mentioned in this topic. One should always be interested in better ways to do things after all.

Charity donations for starving African kids would doubtlessly hit a new high if we let one of them starve to death on live TV, just one, just once, come on, they'd have died anyway!

And yet we don't.

I have seen quite a few documentaries showing exactly that. Most people still do not care.

I have seen quite a few documentaries showing exactly that. Most people still do not care.Oh, there have been documentaries and magazine articles about people dying because they didn't get an organ in time. But hey, that really doesn't compare to the thrill of being able to vote for it by sending text messages like at Eurovision or Big Brother or American Idol, does it now? Make it three African kids. Easy.

Also, if you think having an African kid starve to death on a similar show on live TV wouldn't affect anyone in terms of donating money, what makes you think this show would affect people to donate their organs?

Also, if you think having an African kid starve to death on a similar show on live TV wouldn't affect anyone in terms of donating money, what makes you think this show would affect people to donate their organs?

One does not need organs after one dies. One does need the money during life.

My moral obligations to the showformat you mentioned are not that great btw. After all - everytime I buy something for myself instead of donating it I am in essence killing such a kid already.

One does not need organs after one dies. Funny that so many people are still so reluctant to donate them, then.

One does need the money during life.Oh please. Don't tell me anybody was EVER in danger of donating more money to an NGO fighting hunger in Africa than they could afford. We're talking pittances here.

I recommend heavy counseling for the person who thought of this show.

I recommend heavy counseling for the person who thought of this show.

can we say the same for who ever it was who came up with BB

I recommend heavy counseling for the person who thought of this show.

What they probably got was a raise and a promotion.

My moral obligations to the showformat you mentioned are not that great btw. After all - everytime I buy something for myself instead of donating it I am in essence killing such a kid already.I'm not getting the first part of that paragraph. After all, it's not like you've SEEN such a show format yet.

Also, for one, you'd have to be a very remarkable human being to forgo buying anything for yourself and truly dedicating your life exclusively to fighting hunger in Africa. For another, humans have never been very good in terms of long term memory when it comes to inconvenient truths. Which is why donations might rise immediately after the screening but would plummet straight back down a couple months later. In which case the African kids would have gotten a better deal, because the money is already spent, whereas the organ donor card can still be ripped up or forgotten about or revoked.

I recommend heavy counseling for the person who thought of this show.

Why? They get ratings and profit; the organ donation system gets much needed publicity; and some one gets a kidney before they would even if they were at the top of the list probably. Give the man a medal.

can we say the same for who ever it was who came up with BB

Big Brother was also originally a Dutch idea. ;)

Big Brother was also originally a Dutch idea. ;)

Technically, it was originally an English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) idea.

Technically, it was originally an English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) idea.But we made it into a television show.

Oh, well, this makes me want to puke...

Technically, it was originally an English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell) idea.

Outwiki'd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_%28TV_series%29)

Outwiki'd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Brother_%28TV_series%29)

Riposte! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television)

:rolleyes: dum just dum

Please tell me you misspelled dumb on purpose...

Dutch= BB tv show :mad:

Dutch= BB tv show :mad:Yes?

Yes?

You win the internet.

*hi-fives HC*

Please tell me you misspelled dumb on purpose...

not telling you a thing with out a laweryes don't like to spell it right

Yes?

so you lot are mad

so you lot are mad

Making billions of euros by thinking up a wildly popular worldwide television phenomenon is madness now?

so you lot are mad
So? Must be all the weed and same sex marriages.
You win the internet.

*hi-fives HC*Awesome:p

So? Must be all the weed and same sex marriages.

say the weed

Making billions of euros by thinking up a wildly popular worldwide television phenomenon is madness now?

Madness? This is SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*requests a link to video on YouTube*

Thats... sickening. This television show is using four dying people for profit. The idea that these dying children are going to be made to jump through hoops and get some woman's approval and win a vote if they want to live is horrific.

Unfortunately they have a right, technically, to do this and to broadcast it. I consider it obscene and therefore won't be watching should I ever get the opportunity.

Not if it helps other people live, no.

If you mean that they're helping people live by raising awareness--why not a documentary? It would be far more informative and far less cringe-worthy at the same time. What this is, is nothing more than a stunt to gain ratings.

If you mean that they're helping people live because one of the kids will be getting a kidney--you do realize that means that someone else out there who also needed it, didn't get it? The recipients on the show got lucky and their odds of getting a kidney have improved. There is still someone else out there who is going to die.

If you mean that they're helping people live by raising awareness--why not a documentary? It would be far more informative and far less cringe-worthy at the same time. What this is, is nothing more than a stunt to gain ratings.
And no one would watch it and that would void the point.

If you mean that they're helping people live because one of the kids will be getting a kidney--you do realize that means that someone else out there who also needed it, didn't get it?
Wrong, unfounded leap of logic. You assume she would have donated a kidney to the standard system.

The recipients on the show got lucky and their odds of getting a kidney have improved. There is still someone else out there who is going to die.
Then maybe you should support the show in hopes that it will encourage people to stop being so selfish with their organs and raise awareness about the issue?

I thought a woman's body, and everything in it, were hers, to do with as she pleases.

Its her kidney, I don't see why she should be unable to control her own body.

Sick.

That is ........ disturbing.

If you mean that they're helping people live because one of the kids will be getting a kidney--you do realize that means that someone else out there who also needed it, didn't get it? The recipients on the show got lucky and their odds of getting a kidney have improved. There is still someone else out there who is going to die.

Not to mention the fact that a television show designed for ratings is highly unlikely to pick the sickest patients. They're going to want someone who looks good on TV. So a kidney could have gone to someone who truly needed it right now - someone who would be high up on transplant lists - someone who will die soon without it. Instead, it is likely going to someone who could be on dialysis for quite a while longer before it would no longer work.

Although the idea of the show is disturbing to me, I do have to point out that these "children" will be between 18 and 40 years old. They are old enough to consent for themselves whether or not they want to either be crushed or have a chance at life placed in the hands of voters.

Not to mention the fact that a television show designed for ratings is highly unlikely to pick the sickest patients. They're going to want someone who looks good on TV. So a kidney could have gone to someone who truly needed it right now - someone who would be high up on transplant lists - someone who will die soon without it. Instead, it is likely going to someone who could be on dialysis for quite a while longer before it would no longer work.
High assumption. You are using the same flaws in logic Fass and Effectus have been using and just because yo uare using it doesn't make it any less flawed.

High assumption. You are using the same flaws in logic Fass and Effectus have been using and just because yo uare using it doesn't make it any less flawed.

The flaws in logic that designed donor systems in the first place? There is a reason that these systems are designed they are.

And if this woman wouldn't donate unless she was going to be a TV-star, that just makes it clear that this is about ratings and money, rather than being about saving anyone or raising awareness of anything. All this is going to do is put forth the idea that organ transplant should be a matter of a popularity contest, rather than a medical decision.

This Friday (20:30, Netherlands 3) the Dutch public TV broadcaster BNN is going to broadcast "The Great Donor Show".

In the live television programme, the terminally ill 37-year old Lisa will decide who out of three young kidney patients will get her kidney. Viewers can help her decide using SMS voting.

The show it has been criticised by doctors and Christian Democrats for being about ratings. BNN parried this criticism, saying that even if it is "super-controversial" it is intended to raise awareness about organ donation. The young kidney-patients on the show have a 33% chance of getting a kidney - far higher than their odds on an official waiting list.

According to the law, people can decide to give their organs to a specific person if there is a clear connection between them. BNN claims this will be accomplished by giving Lisa an analysis of their life so far, and by having her talk to their families and friends.

I like.

:p And I thought the U.S. was the nation of capitalists.

Oh, and I think this would make an awsome NS issue, don't you folks?

Oh, and I think this would make an awsome NS issue, don't you folks?

there's a issue that gets you the controversial show 'Who Wants to be an Immigrant?'

there's a issue that gets you the controversial show 'Who Wants to be an Immigrant?'

I remeber that. I would also like too know, if the people who run the show are more interessted in promoting organ donation then money, they should each have donated at least one organ...if they didn't then they're liars and hyppocrites.

I remeber that. I would also like too know, if the people who run the show are more interessted in promoting organ donation then money, they should each have donated at least one organ...if they didn'd then they're liars and hyppocrites.
You mean like all the indignant people here who havn't donated an organ?

You mean like all the indignant people here who havn't donated an organ?

Hmmm? Oh, no. I don't mind capitalism, except when the capitalists are denying that it's just that, which annoys me terribly.

*sigh* Americans.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. The woman isn't selling her kidney, and BNN is funded with public money. They are doing this to make a point, not to make lots of money.

The selfishness in you people sometimes amazes me. *roll*

High assumption. You are using the same flaws in logic Fass and Effectus have been using and just because yo uare using it doesn't make it any less flawed.

How is that a high assumption? Is the show going to consist of us watching her giving her kidney to the person on top of the current kidney transplant list? No. So where are the high assumptions and the flaws in logic again?

*sigh* Americans.

This has nothing to do with capitalism. The woman isn't selling her kidney, and BNN is funded with public money. They are doing this to make a point, not to make lots of money.

The selfishness in you people sometimes amazes me. *roll*

I'm okay with the show if it is either non-profit, or the owners have donated organs berfore.
I'm okay if it's neither of thse also, so long as the owners admit it's about money, because even though it's a grotesque show, it apperently can help. I'm okay if it fulfils any of those qualifications.
Although, the idea of people deciding one person deserves to live more then the other for fun, disgusts me a tad. It should naturally anyone. Of course, I am a strong believer in the motton "the end justifies the means", so I will let it go.

There are a lot of things a lot freedomloving people find disgusting, until it involves themselves.

So, let's take a look at this program.

First: it's televized. So? Nobody is holding a gun against your head to watch the show. You can just tune in on another channel, or watch a video or dvd. Or go out, to the movies, to a pub, go dancing. Whatever you feel like. You're not forced to watch this show.

Secondly: one of the three patients will get a kidney. That's a good thing, isn't it? Of course, you could ask yourself, why these three? Why not? Are they worse than any other patient? I don't think so ...

Thirdly: the woman who donates the kidney, gets to choose. Isn't that an ultimate sign of freedom? She gets to choose whom she gives her kidney to; she gets to choose in wich manner, and apparently, she does it for free. She's a compassionate woman. It's her choice, isn't it?

Wether or not, it's in bad taste, totally different ballpark. She's not a child, she's not mentally ill, she's a civilian, and nobody is forcing her to do this ...
If one has a problem with this, doesn't one have a problem with freedom then?

And please: De gustibus et coloribus, non disputandum est. Don't even think about beginning a discussion about taste. There's no end to such a discussion.

If qualified physicians partake in this show, so much the better. It would be a real shame and waste , if someone was to get a kidney - to continue on living - and it got botched, because there was no qualified physician willing to participate.

Hermes, Ruler of the Holy Empire of Cromlach

This has nothing to do with capitalism. The woman isn't selling her kidney, and BNN is funded with public money. They are doing this to make a point, not to make lots of money.


I'm sure someone, somewhere along-the-way is making money.

This Friday (20:30, Netherlands 3) the Dutch public TV broadcaster BNN is going to broadcast "The Great Donor Show".

In the live television programme, the terminally ill 37-year old Lisa will decide who out of three young kidney patients will get her kidney. Viewers can help her decide using SMS voting.

The show it has been criticised by doctors and Christian Democrats for being about ratings. BNN parried this criticism, saying that even if it is "super-controversial" it is intended to raise awareness about organ donation. The young kidney-patients on the show have a 33% chance of getting a kidney - far higher than their odds on an official waiting list.

According to the law, people can decide to give their organs to a specific person if there is a clear connection between them. BNN claims this will be accomplished by giving Lisa an analysis of their life so far, and by having her talk to their families and friends.

I like.

wow i find this frightenig personally, the idea that people can vote for who lives kind of frightens me. I have no problem with giving your kidney to someone you have a connection with or that they make a program about this, it's just the voting wich seems quite unethical. And if you can make a clear connetion this easy, what prevents you from selling your organs? And while it raises the chances of getting a kindney for these paitients it lowers the chances for the people on the top of the waiting list. There must be better ways to raise awareness about donor donation.

How is that a high assumption? Is the show going to consist of us watching her giving her kidney to the person on top of the current kidney transplant list? No. So where are the high assumptions and the flaws in logic again?

Oh, so you know who is going to be the possible recipients of the kidney? Then why don't you go ahead and tell us where they are on the list so we can end this debate and you all still don't look like you are villainizing the show because of assumptions?

I'm completely fine with it.

I don't see what the problem is. The person offering the kidney is a woman, and therefore owns her body, and everything in it. She should have the right to do with it as she pleases. That someone else needs her body for replacement parts does not invalidate her self-ownership.

I'm completely fine with it.

I don't see what the problem is. The person offering the kidney is a woman, and therefore owns her body, and everything in it. She should have the right to do with it as she pleases. That someone else needs her body for replacement parts does not invalidate her self-ownership.

that's the problem, she won't be deciding what she does with her kidney, people will 'help' her decide by voting.

that's the problem, she won't be deciding what she does with her kidney, people will 'help' her decide by voting.

Some one still gets a kidney, the end.

Some one still gets a kidney, the end.

why not the one on the top of the list?

i just don't think it's a good idea to let people vote one who gets a kidney, she can give them to anyone she wants as far as i'm concerned, but can't she make up her own mind? aren't there better criteria to assign donor organs than popularity?

Since I'm an American I've never heard anything about this. But do none of you consider the idea of a television broadcast in whcch viewrs watch a dying woman decide which dying young person will survive and which will die, to be at least a little bit in bad taste?

Her body, her choice.

Oh, it's very much close to it, where the mob decides who gets treatment and who doesn't.

Well, technically, it's ultimately the kidney-owning person's call.

It's her kidney.

She can decide to deal it out based on the color of eyes of the patient, his material wealth, his cunnilingus technique - or not give out her kidney at all.

Well, technically, it's ultimately the kidney-owning person's call.

It's her kidney.

She can decide to deal it out based on the color of eyes of the patient, his material wealth, his cunnilingus technique - or not give out her kidney at all.

Hmm. She can't actually. That would be against the law. Usually, you donate your organ to the system and it gets allocated according to need - however, if you know a person and have some sort of relationship with them (family, friend) you can donate your organ to that specific person.

It is grossly unethical and I should hope that any physician that gets involved is put under scrutiny for censure.

Seconded.

Not only that woman know she's going to die, now she's also charged with the reponsibility of saving only one out of three and letting the other two die.
This show is sadism, pure and simple. And those who watch such filth aren't better than the fucking cold-blooded bastard who chose to make a TV show to exploit some people's suffering and despair.

Rats, I used to think that the NLs were a fairly decent and sensible place.

Well, technically, it's ultimately the kidney-owning person's call.

It's her kidney.

She can decide to deal it out based on the color of eyes of the patient, his material wealth, his cunnilingus technique - or not give out her kidney at all.

Yes, and that would consitute an amusing event, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

The problem is not that woman choosing what the docs are going to do with her kidney after her death. The problem is that it is something that shouldn't be done in a FUCKING TV SHOW TO AMUSE THE AUDIENCE, for cryin' out loud!

Her body, her choice to dangle.


>_>

Usually, you donate your organ to the system and it gets allocated according to need

are you sure they are allocated according to need? i thought it was given to the person 'on top of the list'.

Not only that woman know she's going to die, now she's also charged with the reponsibility of saving only one out of three and letting the other two die.



As opposed to not donating the kidney and letting all three die?
As opposed to donating the kidney and letting two of them die at random?
How is either of these superior?

why not the one on the top of the list?


I wish you people would point me to the information you have that tells you who the people trying to get the kidney are.

The problem is not that woman choosing what the docs are going to do with her kidney after her death. The problem is that it is something that shouldn't be done in a FUCKING TV SHOW TO AMUSE THE AUDIENCE, for cryin' out loud!I believe it's mostly done to raise awareness; amusing the audience is just a means to an end.
Also consider that the reason for this special event is to remember the founder of BNN who died 5 years ago of kidney problems.

Seconded.

Not only that woman know she's going to die, now she's also charged with the reponsibility of saving only one out of three and letting the other two die.
This show is sadism, pure and simple. And those who watch such filth aren't better than the fucking cold-blooded bastard who chose to make a TV show to exploit some people's suffering and despair.

Rats, I used to think that the NLs were a fairly decent and sensible place.

The people making the show aren't doing it for $$$ - they have good intentions, that is to say, they want to highlight the problem of the shortage of organ donations.


Yes, and that would consitute an amusing event, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:

The problem is not that woman choosing what the docs are going to do with her kidney after her death. The problem is that it is something that shouldn't be done in a FUCKING TV SHOW TO AMUSE THE AUDIENCE, for cryin' out loud!

Indeed. They should all die anonymously, and become nameless statistics. Much easier on the collective conciousness.

are you sure they are allocated according to need? i thought it was given to the person 'on top of the list'.

These lists are based on medical thingamajings. Ask Fass.

These lists are based on medical thingamajings. Ask Fass.
Sure, medical need counts, but so does time on the list and other factors that make arbitrary decisions about who might live and who might die.

Obviously if you don't need a kidney for medical reasons you wouldn't be on the list.

These lists are based on medical thingamajings. Ask Fass.

blijkbaar (http://www.donorvoorlichting.nl/index.cfm?act=vragen.lijst&ouder=82)

The people making the show aren't doing it for $$$ - they have good intentions, that is to say, they want to highlight the problem of the shortage of organ donations.


oh, i dont know dutch. is everyone involved waving any money interest in this show? the station, workers, producers etc all waving their fees?

not that that doesnt still make it unconscionably unethical but at least they arent profiting from it.

The page that just got posted translated (http://www.tranexp.com:2000/InterTran?type=url&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.donorvoorlichting.nl%2Findex.cfm%3Fact%3Dvragen.lijst%26ouder%3D82&text=&from=dut&to=eng)
Y'know, you probably should have just found this on wikipedia.

EDIT: I just realised I'm one post away from 1000 posts.
To spam!

I wish you people would point me to the information you have that tells you who the people trying to get the kidney are.Jeez, it's not exactly rocket science.

Here's what the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in the US (http://www.ustransplant.org/glossary.aspx?term=Waiting%20List) says: After evaluation by a team of transplant professionals, a patient is added to the national waiting list by the transplant center. Lists are specific to both geographic area and organ type: kidney, pancreas, kidney-pancreas, liver, intestine, heart, lung, and heart-lung. Each time a donor organ becomes available, a computer generates a list of potential recipients based on factors that may include genetic similarity, organ size, medical urgency, and time on the waiting list. Through this process, a new list that best matches a waiting patient to a donated organ is generated each time an organ becomes available.
And no, I can't link you to the Dutch equivalent because I don't speak Dutch. You're welcome to recitify this terrible oversight and point out to us where the Dutch regulations differ from the US ones.

Oh, so you know who is going to be the possible recipients of the kidney? Then why don't you go ahead and tell us where they are on the list so we can end this debate and you all still don't look like you are villainizing the show because of assumptions?

You've stopped to make any sense.

You've been arguing "Someone still gets a kidney. The end!", i.e. who cares who gets it. So don't try to argue with me about how you care about where on the list they are. By telling the critics of this they villainize the show based on assumptions, you imply that show actually DOES give the kidney to the recipient most in need of it.

Now, for one, you have repeatedly made clear that you don't care who gets it, you don't believe in those silly lists, and you don't actually know how those lists are made. So for YOU to ASSUME that the show will pick the most candidate most in need of the transplant does not make one iota of sense.

For another, I'm still really, really curious as to how you think the kidney is certain to be given to the person most in need of it when the person is picked out of three people through SMS voting by a TV audience.
After all, you seem to be sure of it (even though, strangely, at the same time, you don't care at all) seeing how you accuse us of making vilifying assumptions when we point out that, unless they have the person on top of the list in the show and the TV audience just magically happens to think said person is "deserving enough", it's not going to be the case.

For another, I'm still really, really curious as to how you think the kidney is certain to be given to the person most in need of it when the person is picked out of three people through SMS voting by a TV audience.


Look. None of these people are getting kidney transplants for fun.

They're ALL people who medically require kidney transplants.

Here's what the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in the US (http://www.ustransplant.org/glossary.aspx?term=Waiting%20List) says:
And no, I can't link you to the Dutch equivalent because I don't speak Dutch. You're welcome to recitify this terrible oversight and point out to us where the Dutch regulations differ from the US ones.

it's basically the same, i linked to the dutch version in my "blijkbaar" comment.

These lists are based on medical thingamajings. Ask Fass.

They are mostly based on the condition of the patient. The sicker the patient, the higher up on th list they will be - unless there are other factors that make them ineligible for a donation (in which case they would simply be removed from the list). Blood type is obviously an issue as well. You may be the sickest patient out there, but they can still only give you an organ that matches your blood type, so they have to wait for one that does so.


Look. None of these people are getting kidney transplants for fun.

They're ALL people who medically require kidney transplants.

...which doesn't meant that there aren't sicker patients out there whose need is much more urgent. Kidney transplant patients often can and do use dialysis for years before a kidney becomes an absolute necessity. While they are waiting, they know that they will eventually need one with more urgency, but there are others who are more urgent.

I highly doubt that a TV show is going to use the sickest most desperate patients. I'm not even sure that it would be a good idea to do so - they're exploiting these people enough as it is.

This Friday (20:30, Netherlands 3) the Dutch public TV broadcaster BNN is going to broadcast "The Great Donor Show".

In the live television programme, the terminally ill 37-year old Lisa will decide who out of three young kidney patients will get her kidney. Viewers can help her decide using SMS voting.

The show it has been criticised by doctors and Christian Democrats for being about ratings. BNN parried this criticism, saying that even if it is "super-controversial" it is intended to raise awareness about organ donation. The young kidney-patients on the show have a 33% chance of getting a kidney - far higher than their odds on an official waiting list.

According to the law, people can decide to give their organs to a specific person if there is a clear connection between them. BNN claims this will be accomplished by giving Lisa an analysis of their life so far, and by having her talk to their families and friends.

I like.

First, Mrs. Oral Sex and now this. Pardon me for saying so, but you Low Countrymen seem crazier than us Yanks. :p

I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. :(

that's the problem, she won't be deciding what she does with her kidney, people will 'help' her decide by voting.

What?! That is completely nonsensical. You acknowledge that she has the right to decide, and then presume to deny her the right to decide how to decide?

What?! That is completely nonsensical. You acknowledge that she has the right to decide, and then presume to deny her the right to decide how to decide?

i just don't think it's a good idea to let peoples votes decide on something as important as an organ donation. You do realis what happened the last time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBQK7m429S8) we let people vote by sms ;) what i mean is that for something as important as a kidney donation there should be other criteria than popularity.

Jeez, it's not exactly rocket science.

Here's what the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients in the US (http://www.ustransplant.org/glossary.aspx?term=Waiting%20List) says:
And no, I can't link you to the Dutch equivalent because I don't speak Dutch. You're welcome to recitify this terrible oversight and point out to us where the Dutch regulations differ from the US ones.
That has nothing at all to do with the question asked.



You've been arguing "Someone still gets a kidney. The end!", i.e. who cares who gets it. So don't try to argue with me about how you care about where on the list they are. By telling the critics of this they villainize the show based on assumptions, you imply that show actually DOES give the kidney to the recipient most in need of it.
You assert then that patients are ranked solely on need and there are no two patients with the exact same amount of need.

Now, for one, you have repeatedly made clear that you don't care who gets it, you don't believe in those silly lists, and you don't actually know how those lists are made.
Wrong, Fass doesn't know and you can't read. I was asking for the names of the people that the show is going to be giving the kidney to and where on the list they are since people know so much. Otherwise all their tripe is unfounded assumption.

I highly doubt that a TV show is going to use the sickest most desperate patients. I'm not even sure that it would be a good idea to do so - they're exploiting these people enough as it is.
Proves my point.

Every "point" you have against the show is unfounded assumption.
1) That the woman would have donated to the system anyway. People don't donate because it is impersonal and other such tripe.
2) That none of these people really "need" the kidney and are at different levels of need.
3) That the show wouldn't use people who "really need" the kidney.

Why don't you people go work on proving your unfounded assertions and don't come back until you can.

Every "point" you have against the show is unfounded assumption.

Funny, "unfounded" doesn't mean "most likely" or "probable" - and by the way, none of which you've been able to counter.

Will this women help less people that need a transplant now than if she wouldn't be on the show?
Are the people she stands to help now less valueble than the hypothetical people that would get the transplants if she decided to do it even if she wasn't on the show?
Will less people be willing to consider donation if the show goes on, or more?
Will awareness of the donor organ shortage be higher with the show than without; and is that a good thing or not?
Anyone considering donating a kidney or part of their liver; seeing as you only really need one kidney, and the liver can regenerate if you take away only a part?

Funny, "unfounded" doesn't mean "most likely" or "probable" - and by the way, none of which you've been able to counter.

How do you propose I counter your nonfactual personal assumption? Provide some evidence of some sort to prove your position.

How do you propose I counter your nonfactual personal assumption? Provide some evidence of some sort to prove your position.

fass is an expert witness in the area of medical ethics. if he says its not ethical, its not.

i just don't think it's a good idea to let peoples votes decide on something as important as an organ donation. You do realis what happened the last time we let people vote by sms what i mean is that for something as important as a kidney donation there should be other criteria than popularity.

You missed my point ... again. It is her right to decide. It is not for you to say that she cannot decide in a particular way.

You missed my point ... again. It is her right to decide. It is not for you to say that she cannot decide in a particular way.

no its not her right to decide.

a system has been set up to help ensure a fair distribution of donated organs and this show is trying to subert that system.

she can give a kidney to a relative or a friend but she is not allowed to peruse the list and pick out the person she likes the best. this show is doing just that. the producers have perused the list and picked out 3 compatible but compelling people to choose from. the one who can be most pathetic on screen will get her kidney.

its a disgusting misuse of the organ donation system and should be disallowed by whoever decides these things in the netherlands.

no its not her right to decide.

a system has been set up to help ensure a fair distribution of donated organs and this show is trying to subert that system.
By an existent loophole. And where do you address the fact that these people may have a rare match type and she matches it? Or that the system can easily be flawed by people having the same level of need but still having to wait because of other arbitrary deciders?

she can give a kidney to a relative or a friend but she is not allowed to peruse the list and pick out the person she likes the best.
And which is why this plot exists - so she can donate an organ to some one she gets to know and thus qualifying for the loophole.


its a disgusting misuse of the organ donation system and should be disallowed by whoever decides these things in the netherlands.
1) Assertion that the system is perfect in every way
2) Assertion that she would donate to the system
3) Assertion that these people didn't really need the kidney, or as not as much as other people

If I was in charge of the system, I would hope this raised awareness and encouraged more people to donate organs for one reason or another.

By an existent loophole. And where do you address the fact that these people may have a rare match type and she matches it? Or that the system can easily be flawed by people having the same level of need but still having to wait because of other arbitrary deciders?


And which is why this plot exists - so she can donate an organ to some one she gets to know and thus qualifying for the loophole.



1) Assertion that the system is perfect in every way
2) Assertion that she would donate to the system
3) Assertion that these people didn't really need the kidney, or as not as much as other people

If I was in charge of the system, I would hope this raised awareness and encouraged more people to donate organs for one reason or another.

none of these things matter.

she doesnt get to pick someone off the list and this show is doing just that.

that makes it wrong.

the other thing that makes it wrong is using people's illnesses, misery, death and desperation as entertainment. the producers should be ashamed of themselves.

no its not her right to decide.

a system has been set up to help ensure a fair distribution of donated organs and this show is trying to subert that system.

she can give a kidney to a relative or a friend but she is not allowed to peruse the list and pick out the person she likes the best. this show is doing just that. the producers have perused the list and picked out 3 compatible but compelling people to choose from. the one who can be most pathetic on screen will get her kidney.

its a disgusting misuse of the organ donation system and should be disallowed by whoever decides these things in the netherlands.

I'm sorry, I'm coming to this argument late, and haven't read the whole thread, however, it seems clear to me that if a woman has a right to her body in the case of abortion, she also has a right to her body in this case as well. I may question the taste of basing a TV show upon it, but I question the taste of many TV shows. I personally won't be watching.

I'm sorry, I'm coming to this argument late, and haven't read the whole thread, however, it seems clear to me that if a woman has a right to her body in the case of abortion, she also has a right to her body in this case as well. I may question the taste of basing a TV show upon it, but I question the taste of many TV shows. I personally won't be watching.

as clear as it might seem, she doesnt.

the exceptions are for family and friends. not for tv shows.

as clear as it might seem, she doesnt.

the exceptions are for family and friends. not for tv shows.

When you say exceptions, I assume you mean legal ones. Law is arbitrary and subject to change. Just as in the abortion debate, the current state of law is fairly irrelevant to what people believe should be the case, in which my comment was couched. I apologise for the lack of clarity in that regard.

It is her body, so she should be allowed to choose. That is my opinion, which is consistent with my opinion on abortion.

no its not her right to decide.

a system has been set up to help ensure a fair distribution of donated organs and this show is trying to subert that system.

It is her right.

Ask any advocate of abortion.

she can give a kidney to a relative or a friend but she is not allowed to peruse the list and pick out the person she likes the best. this show is doing just that. the producers have perused the list and picked out 3 compatible but compelling people to choose from. the one who can be most pathetic on screen will get her kidney.

its a disgusting misuse of the organ donation system and should be disallowed by whoever decides these things in the netherlands.

Lets apply the same logic to abortion (since that is obviously where I got the argument), a woman should never be allowed to have an abortion, she does not have the right to control her body, and the baby she carries will most likely be useful to society, and she has no right to withhold anything of use to society.

as clear as it might seem, she doesnt.

the exceptions are for family and friends. not for tv shows.

This is an argument by assertion. You have not made any attempt to argue this logically.

When you say exceptions, I assume you mean legal ones. Law is arbitrary and subject to change. Just as in the abortion debate, the current state of law is fairly irrelevant to what people believe should be the case, in which my comment was couched. I apologise for the lack of clarity in that regard.

It is her body, so she should be allowed to choose. That is my opinion, which is consistent with my opinion on abortion.

have all the opinion you want.

if you try thinking it through from a needs point of view you might understand WHY the system is run as it is. which doesnt mean you have to agree with it.

of course most organs cant be donated and have the donor live. most people with 2 working kidneys arent interested in compromising their own future by donating to anyone but family or friend (and not everyone is willing to do that). being induced to join a dog and pony show for the entertainment of the masses is one of the things the system is set up to prevent. marketing people's misery and desperation is beyond creepy.

but donating a kidney isnt the same as giving $100 from your pocket. it involves doctors and hospitals who are also bound by professional ethics and expenditures of public resources. she cant take a knife, cut out her own kidney and hand it to the poor desperate kid who gets the most votes. you cant expect doctors to violate ethics because she decided to participate in this horror.

From The Times
May 29, 2007

Who survives? Viewers decide
Roger Boyes in Berlin

No reality television programme has played for such high stakes: three nervous candidates will be competing in front of a prime-time audience this week for a life-saving kidney operation, as the Big Brother format gives way to The Big Donor Show.

The macabre contest will be broadcast in the Netherlands on Friday. It is produced by Endemol, the maker of Big Brother, which is about to begin an eighth series in Britain. But while the worst that can happen in Big Brother is public humiliation, the Big Donor rivals are battling for their lives.

Lisa, 37, a terminally ill cancer patient, has agreed to donate a healthy kidney. She was unhappy about anonymous donation and wanted to establish a connection to a deserving person with kidney disease: that way her family could feel that her death had helped to keep someone else alive. But how, said Lisa, could she choose one life over another? How could she make the process less random?

The choice has been left to the television audience. A short film will be shown about each candidate depicting his or her life, family and friends. The candidates will be interviewed and spell out their dreams for a fulfilled and successful life. In the manner of Big Brother or the Eurovision Song Contest, viewers will register their choice by text message.

The identity of the contestants has been kept secret to prevent any lobbying; all that is known is that they are Dutch and aged between 18 and 40.

Politicians across the party spectrum are enraged and flabbergasted. The issue is to be discussed this week in parliamentary question time, with pressure mounting on BNN, the private broadcaster, to drop the show. Joop Atsma, spokesman on media affairs for the conservative CDA party, said that he wanted the whole thing dropped. “BNN won’t solve the question of organ donations with this show.”

The broadcaster, whose target audience is young people, has a reputation for being provocative. Its track record includes showing an anchorman taking the drug LSD, a supposedly educational programme on sex, entitled This is How You Screw and a weight-loss competition Help! My Dog’s as Fat as Me. There is more than a sliver of suspicion that it is exploiting illness for ratings.

The network, however, says that it merely wants to highlight the long waiting lists for donor organs. One of its leading entertainers died five years ago after failing to get a new kidney.

“The contestants in the show have a 33 per cent chance,” said Laurens Drillich, BNN chairman. “That’s a much larger chance than if they were on the organ waiting list.” Although some politicians are calling the show unethical, the main argument is that it violates good taste and is pushing the boundaries of acceptability.

Endemol, which also produces less provocative shows such as Show Me the Money, has often been the butt of criticism for its gladiatorial television formats. Much will depend on the production values, say the local TV critics: will the cameras, for example, linger on the faces of the candidates who lose?

“We are happy that the problems we have in finding donors is receiving publicity thanks to Endemol,” says Paul Beerkens, director of the Dutch Organ Donor Association. “But the way it is being accomplished is certainly not the way we would have liked.”

BBC News article on the subject (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6699847.stm)

From that "other" thread.

The people making the show aren't doing it for $$$ - they have good intentions, that is to say, they want to highlight the problem of the shortage of organ donations.

Sorry, I'll have to be brutal: This is the usual bullshit the marketing advisors use to mask the €€€ behind shows. And you aren't smart enough to tell commercial bullshit from facts.


Indeed. They should all die anonymously, and become nameless statistics. Much easier on the collective conciousness.

Preposterous argument. You are putting in my mouth a sentence I've never spoken. I have nothing to object to a DOCUMENTARY with names etc about people who need a transplant.
A TV show about "who's going to get a kidney", SMS voting included, isn't a documentary - it's just making suffering into entertainment. Hence, it is ethically wrong.

The macabre contest will be broadcast in the Netherlands on Friday. It is produced by Endemol, the maker of Big Brother,

-and, since last week, a property of Silvio Berlusconi's Mediaset TV production and broadcasting group, might I add.

“We are happy that the problems we have in finding donors is receiving publicity thanks to Endemol,” says Paul Beerkens, director of the Dutch Organ Donor Association. “But the way it is being accomplished is certainly not the way we would have liked.”
(bold mine)

Looks like my position isn't different from that of Mr.Beerkens, although he said it in a more polite way.

By an existent loophole. And where do you address the fact that these people may have a rare match type and she matches it? Or that the system can easily be flawed by people having the same level of need but still having to wait because of other arbitrary deciders?

Arbitrary? Do you have any idea how much goes into placement on an organ list? Do you have any idea why these criteria exist?

Do you really think they are more arbitrary than, "who can speak well enough to convince a TV audience and one woman that they are "more deserving" or (to the TV audience) cuter than the next person"?

And which is why this plot exists - so she can donate an organ to some one she gets to know and thus qualifying for the loophole.

Yes, because we should always decide such things by who can grovel the most and who wins a popularity contest. :rolleyes:

If I was in charge of the system, I would hope this raised awareness and encouraged more people to donate organs for one reason or another.

I would hope so, but my hopes wouldn't be very high. This is an American Idol -style show. They're deciding who lives and dies by popularity contest. I highly doubt this is going to raise awareness of the actual problems in the system and is going to do little for those who do care but disgust them.

While I think that this show is a good idea for promoting organ donation, I also think that it must be a little bit hard for the two that doesn't win the show.
''Sorry, but the people have spoken. You aren't getting a kidney this time. Back to the waiting list. However, you do win a copy of our home game.''

But hey, it's her kidney and she can't save everyone. So the two others die a bit before the winner. Well so does she. No matter what, somebody is going to die, and giving the needy a chance to compete will probably be better for the psyche than knowing that, no matter what you do, you aren't going to move up this list unless somebody dies/gets a kidney.
Giving them a chance to ''fight for their lives'' seems a bit more humane than just leaving them at the mercy of the system.

(I don't mean to upset anyone, these are just my personal views. And I apologise if they aren't very well formulated, but then again, it's a question of personal taste so you can't say I'm wrong ;-P)

I would hope so, but my hopes wouldn't be very high. This is an American Idol -style show. They're deciding who lives and dies by popularity contest. I highly doubt this is going to raise awareness of the actual problems in the system and is going to do little for those who do care but disgust them.

Oh, I do not know. I estimate that quite a few people that would not normally donate organs would be willing to do so to be famous and on tv.
Assuming we look at organs one can donate without dying oneself of course. And maybe blood, tissue etc as well.

Giving them a chance to ''fight for their lives'' seems a bit more humane than just leaving them at the mercy of the system.

There's an idea! As long as we're exploiting sick people for TV ratings, why not make it gladiatorial style combat? The last person left standing gets a kidney! If we don't want them to die in combat, we could always do it the old American Gladiator style, where they had nerf weapons and stuff.

Oh, I do not know. I estimate that quite a few people that would not normally donate organs would be willing to do so to be famous and on tv.
Assuming we look at organs one can donate without dying oneself of course. And maybe blood, tissue etc as well.

How does that counter anything I've said? I said those who actually care will be disgusted - not those who want to make a quick few bucks or get famous.

How does that counter anything I've said? I said those who actually care will be disgusted - not those who want to make a quick few bucks or get famous.

I do not care about people being disgusted. I care about people helped.
It is sad, but I can easily see a show like this increasing the number of available organs a dozen, or maybe even a hundredfold.
Yes, I have a low opinion of humanity.

I do not care about people being disgusted. I care about people helped.

And I think more people are helped by raising awareness of the diseases and the actual donation system and making sure the organs go to the sickest people than by pretending that it is or should be a popularity contest.

Suppose two of the people on this TV show are a cute female 20-something and a 40-something guy who is balding. Who do you think is going to get the kidney, regardless of which of them might survive longer on dialysis?

The organ in this type of set-up is going to go to the most "marketable" person. Is that really how we want to determine organ donation?

Meanwhile, people disgusted could lead to people who lose faith in the system - people who would already have donated to it - and thus result in less people helped. This is especially true when you realize that this sort of show can only go on for a season or two before the public loses interest and you can't get famous off of it anymore.

First off I wonder if the woman has two kidneys and why only one gets donated. What about playing this game with someone who needs a heart? A liver? Her corneas? What about her skin and other organs they can harvest? Why stop at her organs? Let's have a game show that decides who she gives her personal belongings to when she dies.

Second, part of the criteria for donation is need, of course, but also (at least as far as kidneys go) is a genetic marker set that needs to be matched between donor and recipient.

I have had two kidney transplants (and I only bring this up to counter the ever present "I demand to know what makes you think you have authority to say such and such) and am lucky enough to have my own dialysis machine at home.

If you wish to donate your organs to someone you know tests must still be done and if the organ doesn't match the transplant doesn't get done. I can only guess that the "contestants" on this show have been pre-screened to be a viable match with the donor.

That being said I know there are better ways to increase awareness regarding donation choices, but I also realize this "gameshow" (don't call it a documentary--nobody in a documentary, to my knowledge, ever won as a prize whatever the documentary was discussing) is going to raise awareness even faster than a boring dry documentary. I am not saying it is right and personally think they bastards are pandering to the lowest common denominator, but this is a hot thread that is discussing it and if they simply made a documentary then this thread would have been short.

Personally I think they should just go ahead and make it a true game show called Wheel of Organs and the winner of each nights show has to give their winnings to the donor.

Why does being closer to death make you more deserving of a kidney?

It seems to me that someone younger and healthier would benefit more over their lifetime than someone who is older and already has failing health. Thus giving the kidney to someone healthier would maximize the benefit of that organ. While the person in worse health may not survive much longer, their already failing health means they will probably not survive all that much longer even with the kidney as compared with someone who is relatively healthy when they receive the kidney and thus will never degenerate to such a decrepit level.

(relax, just random musings and not a thought out argument – no need to flame).


If this woman was turned off by anonymous donation to an impersonal system as the previously posted article suggests, then this indicates that she would likely not have donated her kidney were it to just go to an anonymous recipient. Thus, this show raised the available kidneys by one. That is one more person getting a life-saving organ than would otherwise have happened.

Personally, I really see nothing wrong with this. Actually… we should be encouraging these shows. Get healthy people to donate an organ in return for their 15 min of fame.

Well, technically, it's ultimately the kidney-owning person's call.

It's her kidney.

She can decide to deal it out based on the color of eyes of the patient, his material wealth, his cunnilingus technique - or not give out her kidney at all.

I actually love this idea... the organ goes to the best oral skills. Give her a little fun and pleasure in life before she dies.

Why does being closer to death make you more deserving of a kidney?

It doesn't make you "more deserving". It means that you need it more. The sickest patients are going to die soon without an organ transplant. Those who are not as sick can wait longer.

In a perfect world with plenty of available organs, we'd be able to give someone an organ as soon as they were diagnosed with a disease that would necessitate it. As it is, however, we have to allocate them as they come.

It seems to me that someone younger and healthier would benefit more over their lifetime than someone who is older and already has failing health. Thus giving the kidney to someone healthier would maximize the benefit of that organ. While the person in worse health may not survive much longer, their already failing health means they will probably not survive all that much longer even with the kidney as compared with someone who is relatively healthy when they receive the kidney and thus will never degenerate to such a decrepit level.

Someone who has other complications that will make them unlikely to survive after organ transplant will not be placed on the list at all. When I say "sickest patients", I'm not talking about age or ailments unrelated to organ failure. I am talking about those who are suffering from end-stage organ failure and thus need the organ now, rather than later. Age isn't really a factor (other than the fact that the very elderly are likely to have other ailments, and thus not be placed on a transplant list). The person suffering from end-stage renal (for example) failure could be 25 or could be 55, although most organ failure patients are on the older side of the range.

It doesn't matter how otherwise young and healthy a person is. If they are in end-stage organ failure, they are going to be among the sickest patients out there.

If this woman was turned off by anonymous donation to an impersonal system as the previously posted article suggests, then this indicates that she would likely not have donated her kidney were it to just go to an anonymous recipient. Thus, this show raised the available kidneys by one. That is one more person getting a life-saving organ than would otherwise have happened.

The article also suggests that she doesn't understand the organ transplant system, as her problem was that she couldn't "randomly" give out her organs. Organs in the system are not, however, randomly assigned.

If this were just a lady who personally put her information out there to find someone to donate to, I'd have little problem with it - although I'd be a bit leery about a cancer patient handing out organs. It is the American Idol-style voting and the exploitation of the sick that bothers me.

Personally, I really see nothing wrong with this. Actually… we should be encouraging these shows. Get healthy people to donate an organ in return for their 15 min of fame.

Yes, lets encourage the idiotic viewpoint that organ donation should be a popularity contest.

Excellent idea, it's being reality television nothwithstanding.

The portrayal of emotional intensity, and the finality of death, might encourage viewers to donate organs.

Incidentally, how long does an ear piercing take to stop hurting?

I would hope so, but my hopes wouldn't be very high. This is an American Idol -style show. They're deciding who lives and dies by popularity contest. I highly doubt this is going to raise awareness of the actual problems in the system and is going to do little for those who do care but disgust them.

Well there arn't exactly "problems" in the music industry that can be solved by any more exposure that American Idol gives it, so how would you know?

Well there arn't exactly "problems" in the music industry that can be solved by any more exposure that American Idol gives it, so how would you know?

Because of the way these shows work, darling. They're all about sensationalism and popularity contests. Any "awareness" this show could raise will have little, if anything, to do with the actual issues.

Organ donation is not and should not be a matter of who looks the cutest or cries the hardest on TV.

wowa. controversial idea. yet, appealing. love it

Because of the way these shows work, darling. They're all about sensationalism and popularity contests. Any "awareness" this show could raise will have little, if anything, to do with the actual issues.
Again, based on what facts? All of "these shows" were sensational to be sensational. There was no other purpose or serious theme.
Can you at least try to produce a "point" against the show that isn't you making an baseless assumption or assertion?

Again, based on what facts?

The way the entertainment industry works. Sorry if I don't buy a dog and pony show just because someone claims it's about "raising awareness." I'll consider that possible as soon as the TV station donates every last cent of proceeds to charities focussed on doing just that. Until then, I will continue to see it as exactly what it appears to be - a bullshit excuse to hold a controversial and damaging contest.

You really think the makers of "Big Brother" are suddenly moving away from sensationalism? Man, I thought I was the consummate optimist. You're truly scary.

All of "these shows" were sensational to be sensational. There was no other purpose or serious theme.

It's so cute that you think otherwise here.

Can you at least try to produce a "point" against the show that isn't you making an baseless assumption or assertion?

The fact that they are turning organ donation into a popularity contest is clear. That's the whole purpose of putting these people and their families on TV so everyone can see them and decide, based on how they look and what they say to the camera, which is more worthy of a kidney. Then everyone gets to vote!

The idea that such a set-up could be compassionate is utter bullshit. It's exploitation, clear and simple. They are using these people to make "compelling" television. I suppose we should make the next show about the Kids Wish Network. After all, TV has to get more and more controversial. Make all the kids compete by putting them and their families on TV and having them tell what their wish is. Let the home audience vote for which kid they think is cutest and most worthy of getting a wish. Make sure the other ones know that they didn't get picked because they weren't cute enough, or they didn't cry enough, or their moms weren't pretty enough. And we can claim it's really to raise awareness about children's diseases. :rolleyes:

Let's put you on the organ donation waiting list for a dozen years and see if you give a fuck? It isn't your god damn choice, it is their's. They already decided that they rather have a quantifiable chance at a kidney that is a match for them than waiting on the list any longer in complete obscurity in a hope that some one might donate an organ that is a match for them.

You want to get all indignant for what? Because you don't like it? Boo-fucking-hoo. All your points against it are because you don't like what you think it is, you completely and outright dismiss anything good it can do because you don't like the format. Sense you don't have any real arguments, what is your actual problem with it? Did you know some one on a waiting list who died or have been waiting for years yourself and are just being spiteful because people have decided that going in front of the world and having their lives examined is perfectly acceptable for an actual shot at getting a matching organ? That's what it sounds like to me - spite, plain spite.

Let's put you on the organ donation waiting list for a dozen years and see if you give a fuck? It isn't your god damn choice, it is their's. They already decided that they rather have a quantifiable chance at a kidney that is a match for them than waiting on the list any longer in complete obscurity in a hope that some one might donate an organ that is a match for them.

I don't have to be on a donor list to have compassion for those who do - to feel that they shouldn't be exploited and that the system that *could* serve them all should not be made out to be a matter of who looks best on TV. If people are going to donate organs, it isn't going to be because they got to vote someone off the fucking island. It's going to be because they are decent people who actually have compassion for others, rather than using them like circus clowns. And you don't need a bunch of sensationalist bullshit to reach those people - you just need to get the information out there.

You want to get all indignant for what? Because you don't like it? Boo-fucking-hoo. All your points against it are because you don't like what you think it is, you completely and outright dismiss anything good it can do because you don't like the format. Sense you don't have any real arguments, what is your actual problem with it? Did you know some one on a waiting list who died or have been waiting for years yourself and are just being spiteful because people have decided that going in front of the world and having their lives examined is perfectly acceptable for an actual shot at getting a matching organ? That's what it sounds like to me - spite, plain spite.

Nice strawman you built there. I don't have any problem with the people being exploited by the show, my dear. I never expressed any problem with them. I take no more issue with them than I would the children if a TV show decided to use the Kids Wish Network to line their pockets.

I have a problem with the people who are exploiting the sick to line their pockets. I have a problem with the people who are making organ donation out to be a popularity contest while pretending that they actually want to "raise awareness" of the problems those who need organs face. I have a problem with those who think it's great to get sick people to do a dog and pony show in hopes that it will get them medical treatment. The person who would think of such a thing is a sick bastard.

I don't have to be on a donor list to have compassion for those who do - to feel that they shouldn't be exploited and that the system that *could* serve them all should not be made out to be a matter of who looks best on TV.
Could serve them all - if every person in a country who was able to donate was forced by law - but they arn't so it can't. I would bet a number of people who have been on the donor lists for a long time would rather be in game shows than sit around waiting for luck and karma to be on their side.

If people are going to donate organs, it isn't going to be because they got to vote someone off the fucking island.
This is Survivor now? I was under the impression by the show description that it was more like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" with the people getting a kidney being the choices and the donator the player - sure she can poll the audience, but who cares?

It's going to be because they are decent people who actually have compassion for others,
Yeah, and we see how wwell that is doing the organ donation system, and the world. The few people in the world who are actually kind, decent people probably have a fraction of them who don't donate because the system is purposefully impersonal and while being kind and decent they are selfish and possessive.. and ignorant.

And you don't need a bunch of sensationalist bullshit to reach those people - you just need to get the information out there.
Yeah, too bad you need the sensationalist bullshit to reach enough fucking people and convince them that the system needs more help and more people to volunteer to donate.


I don't have any problem with the people being exploited by the show, my dear.
If only passive aggressively you do. If it wasn't for them, there would be no show. You are inherently insulting and faulting them for being involved in this "circus" as you call it. Not only that but you are attacking the person donating a kidney who probably wouldn't have in the first place. If I wanted to pull a straw man, I would ask if you were on the organ donor list or if you were just a vindictive elitist?

I take no more issue with them than I would the children if a TV show decided to use the Kids Wish Network to line their pockets.
Corporations do this shit all the time. Drug companies make a living doing it. What do you expect the entertainment industry to do? Who gives a fuck what the means are? The ends perfectly justify the means in this case - some one gets an organ and the organ donation system gets a publicity boost. Who gives a fuck if some one profits? They deserve whatever they are paid for just one of those achievements.

I have a problem with the people who are exploiting the sick to line their pockets.
Drugs companies?

I have a problem with the people who are making organ donation out to be a popularity contest
Which seems to be just your idea. This is not a popularity contest. The woman decides. It is called audience involvement - it gets them extremely interested in what is going on by making them think their opinion matters. Unless you can prove audience vote decides who the kidney goes to, shut. the. fuck. up. about it.

I have a problem with those who think it's great to get sick people to do a dog and pony show in hopes that it will get them medical treatment.
So you have a problem with those people volunteering to get the kidney and you have a problem with the woman donating the kidney?

Ouch. To be the two people not chosen or their family would just... not fun...

Ouch. To be the two people not chosen or their family would just... not fun...

I would assume they would still be on the list. Sure, they didn't get it immediately, but their chances at getting one havn't gotten any worse.

Could serve them all - if every person in a country who was able to donate was forced by law - but they arn't so it can't. I would bet a number of people who have been on the donor lists for a long time would rather be in game shows than sit around waiting for luck and karma to be on their side.

Hence the reason that people like the assholes in TV can exploit them.

This is Survivor now? I was under the impression by the show description that it was more like "Who Wants to be a Millionaire" with the people getting a kidney being the choices.

No, it's more like Survivor, American Idol, Big Brother, etc. It's a competition between people. The difference here is that they're vying for a life-saving operation, rather than money.

How the hell could you get "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"? Have you ever even seen that show?

Yeah, and we see how wwell that is doing the organ donation system, and the world. The few people in the world who are actually kind, decent people probably have a fraction of them who don't donate because the system is purposefully impersonal and while being kind and decent they are selfish and possessive.. and ignorant.

There are a lot of ignorant people out there. And there are a lot of people who simply haven't thought about it. Hence the reason that I support an opt-out, rather than an opt-in system of donation. There are countries that have implemented such systems, with very good results.

Yeah, too bad you need the sensationalist bullshit to reach enough fucking people and convince them that the system needs more help and more people to volunteer to donate.

I highly doubt this is going to convince anybody of anything, other than the fact that they can try and control someone's life and death with a cellular phone.

If only passive aggressively you do.

No, I don't. I feel bad for them that they feel they have to do this.

If I wanted to pull a straw man, I would ask if you were on the organ donor list or if you were just a vindictive elitist?

I am on the organ donor list. I am getting registered as a bone marrow donor. I also give blood every 8 or 16 weeks, depending on whether or not I gave whole or double red. I've actually put off getting any piercings or tattoos because I don't want to be turned away from giving blood. I've made it clear to my husband that, upon my death, I want every piece of my body that can possibly help another to be taken to that end. Anything that cannot be donated to a patient can be donated to science.

I work for a woman who is an anesthesiologist on a liver transplant team. She works with (and keeps alive) some of the sickest patients doctors ever see - those in end-stage liver failure.

Answer your question?

Corporations do this shit all the time. Drug companies make a living doing it. What do you expect the entertainment industry to do?

At the very least? Be honest. This isn't about "raising awareness" of anything. It's about sensationalist TV that will line the pockets of a few people who couldn't give a shit about the people they're parading in front of the cameras.

Who gives a fuck what the means are? The ends perfectly justify the means in this case - some one gets an organ and the organ donation system gets a publicity boost. Who gives a fuck if some one profits? They deserve whatever they are paid for just one of those achievements.

I don't think this gives the organ donation system a publicity boost. In fact, I think the whole charade makes a mockery of it.

Drugs companies?

Do drug companies hold television shows to have people compete for their medications? They do quite often overcharge - and I think that's bullshit as well, but at least they don't put people through a public charade for it.

Which seems to be just your idea. This is not a popularity contest. The woman decides. It is called audience involvement - it gets them extremely interested in what is going on by making them think their opinion matters. Unless you can prove audience vote decides who the kidney goes to, shut. the. fuck. up. about it.

You think she won't be at all swayed by the voters? You think she isn't meant to decide based on what is, essentially, a popularity contest? These people are expected to put on a show - for the TV viewers and for this woman - so the voters can try and convince the woman of who she should donate a kidney to.

It's an absolutely disgusting way to treat anyone - whether they've agreed to it or not. And I don't see how anyone with even an ounce of compassion could suggest otherwise.

So you have a problem with those people volunteering to get the kidney and you have a problem with the woman donating the kidney?

The person donating - maybe. I don't know what she thinks of the whole setup, so I don't know enough to say. If she really thinks it's a good idea to get people to do a dog and pony show before she's willing to help save their lives, then yes, I have a problem with her.

The people competing for it? Very unlikely. I highly doubt they think this is a great idea. They most likely think it's a chance at a kidney and they'll take it, no matter how much bullshit is involved.

Hence the reason that people like the assholes in TV can exploit them.
How is it exploitation? They choose to be involved in it. They don't have to volunteer to try and get a kidney.

No, it's more like Survivor, American Idol, Big Brother, etc. It's a competition between people. The difference here is that they're vying for a life-saving operation, rather than money.
What did I say about this? Besides the fact that Survivor isn't audience participation shows, you have yet to show that the audience's decision is the deciding factor in who gets the kidney.

How the hell could you get "Who Wants to be a Millionaire"? Have you ever even seen that show?
Yes, did you fucking read what I said?


There are a lot of ignorant people out there. And there are a lot of people who simply haven't thought about it. Hence the reason that I support an opt-out, rather than an opt-in system of donation. There are countries that have implemented such systems, with very good results.
Which then voids your point doesn't it? You obviously recognize that "decent people" cannot be expected to keep the system up and running without being forced to donate kidneys.


I highly doubt this is going to convince anybody of anything, other than the fact that they can try and control someone's life and death with a cellular phone.
Stop saying it until you can prove it, but that hasn't stopped the rest of your "points" against the show.

At the very least? Be honest. This isn't about "raising awareness" of anything. It's about sensationalist TV that will line the pockets of a few people who couldn't give a shit about the people they're parading in front of the cameras.
Ir-fucking-relevant. It's the same fucking reason people pay assloads of cash to put ads on during the Superbowl. Getting people to see what is going on increases product purchases. I don't think I have ever even seen a documentary about organ transplants, and very few regular people would watch the channels it would be on, if they even had access to them. who gives a fuck if they get money? Obviously you are far more concerned about people getting paid for doing this than you are for the good it could do which says alot more about you.



I don't think this gives the organ donation system a publicity boost. In fact, I think the whole charade makes a mockery of it.
That would assume everyone is as pointlessly indignant as you are and is involved in the organ donation system like you.


Do drug companies hold television shows to have people compete for their medications?
No, but so what? Is that the only way to exploit people?

They do quite often overcharge - and I think that's bullshit as well, but at least they don't put people through a public charade for it.
You obviously have a problem here that goes far beyond an aversion to this show, you should go talk to some one about it. You are making out these people to be far worse bad guys just because they are making a tv show where some one does get a kidney when they might not at all and the organ donation system gets publicity than the drug industry which actively price gouges drug costs and is throwing world wide patents around to try and prevent countries close to third world from creating their own affordable generic drugs not to mention failing to develop possible cures because developing them would not earn the company any money. I think you need to get a fucking grip on reality.


You think she won't be at all swayed by the voters?
Prove the voters matter.

The person donating - maybe.
So a dying person donating their organ when they wouldn't otherwise because of the impersonal system should be villainized because of the method?

You sicken me far worse than the producers of this show and I am done with you.

I find that to be grossly unethical, especially as Endemol/BNN is likely to be turning an additional profit from the sms part. It reeks of publicity stuntness to make additional money from higher potential ratings and the sms poll.

And I think someone pointed out that people tend to normally have two kidneys. So what's happening to this second kidney of this woman's when she dies?

If there is a hell, I hope a special space in hell is reserved for Endemol for all the crap they've produced.

Controversy attracts an audience, but whether it'll draw attention to organ donor shortage or whether people will just view it as some sort of freak show for whom the consequences for the losers is most likely death, then I don'y know. In real life people usually don't get to choose who their organs go to (unless, of course there's some sort of family connection). This might just agitate the organ donor situation more by making people want to know who their organs go to (which isn't always possible, and which is generally a waste of precious time and a complication of affairs for doctors). For promoting organ donation I'm all for it, for the other implications, then it might cause more harm than good.

But, hey, who knows? Maybe somebody watching the show might decide to donate a kidney to one of the losers - so theoretically they could all win...

How is it exploitation? They choose to be involved in it. They don't have to volunteer to try and get a kidney.

Exploitation often involves "voluntary" participation. If someone is desperate, and you use that to your own advantage, that is exploitation.

What did I say about this? Besides the fact that Survivor isn't audience participation shows, you have yet to show that the audience's decision is the deciding factor in who gets the kidney.

I never claimed that it was "the deciding factor." It is a factor. To suggest that the woman won't be at all swayed by the votes is silly. Their purpose is even listed as something to "help" her decide who to give her kidney to.

And Survivor doesn't have to be an audience participation show for the comparison to be valid. You have several people competing for a single prize on a TV reality show - and the main deciding factor is how likeable they are. That makes it similar to all of the shows I listed.

Yes, did you fucking read what I said?

Yes, and the comparison is still invalid. This would be similar to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire if they picked a single person who needed a kidney and asked them a series of questions. If they got all the questions right, they'd get a kidney.

That isn't, however, the setup. The setup is that there are three contestants vying to be the most well-liked so that a single one of them can get a kidney. This makes it much more similar to Big Brother, etc. (which makes sense, as the people putting the show together are the creators of Big Brother)

It's more like American Idol, with the added twist that Paula Abdul can, if she wishes to, override the home voters.

Which then voids your point doesn't it? You obviously recognize that "decent people" cannot be expected to keep the system up and running without being forced to donate kidneys.

I didn't say anything about force, my dear. The more angry and irrational you get, the worse your reading comprehension gets. Force would be mandatory organ donation - something I am not in favor of. Force is not involved in an opt-in or an opt-out system. Moving to an opt-out system would simply catch those who are apathetic, thus increasing the donor pool.

Stop saying it until you can prove it, but that hasn't stopped the rest of your "points" against the show.

Why would they give people the opportunity to vote if not to create, at the very least, the illusion that they are making the decision?

Ir-fucking-relevant.

Not in the least. It is exactly my point. I don't think the sick should be exploited simply because they are desperate. I don't think people should be put through a dog and pony show to determine whether or not they get life-saving medical treatment.

Tell me, would you be arguing so fervently in favor of this if the show claimed they wanted to draw attention to a lack of funding for children's hospitals and decided to hold a contest between child cancer patients to see which one was "more worthy" of chemotherapy?

Obviously you are far more concerned about people getting paid for doing this than you are for the good it could do which says alot more about you.

Strawman yet again. If I thought it would actually do good in the long run, I'd support it. But I think this show is going to do much more harm than good - and at the expense of those who are suffering. It's disgusting.

That would assume everyone is as pointlessly indignant as you are and is involved in the organ donation system like you.

Pointlessly indignant, eh? Empathy and compassion are pointless now?

And no, many people aren't involved in the organ donation system - and creating the illusion that it is or should be a popularity contest isn't going to increase the people who donate into the system. If it has an effect, it will most likely either start turning the system in that direction, so that "well-liked" becomes the main determinant of who gets an organ or it will convince people that it already is the main determinant, thus leaving people disillusioned with the system.

No, but so what? Is that the only way to exploit people?

No, but it is an obvious and disgusting way to exploit people.

You obviously have a problem here that goes far beyond an aversion to this show, you should go talk to some one about it. You are making out these people to be far worse bad guys just because they are making a tv show where some one does get a kidney when they might not at all and the organ donation system gets publicity than the drug industry which actively price gouges drug costs and is throwing world wide patents around to try and prevent countries close to third world from creating their own affordable generic drugs not to mention failing to develop possible cures because developing them would not earn the company any money. I think you need to get a fucking grip on reality.

I think you need to improve your reading comprehension. I expressed my distaste the the tactics used by many drug companies. I didn't focus on it because it is not the subject of this thread.

Prove the voters matter.

If they don't, then I'm sure the show will gladly remove that aspect of the show.

So a dying person donating their organ when they wouldn't otherwise because of the impersonal system should be villainized because of the method?

You sicken me far worse than the producers of this show and I am done with you.

Wow, your reading comprehension is worse than I thought. Somehow, "I don't know enough about this woman and her motives to make any judgement," in your mind, became, "ZOMG! SHE'S EVIL!!!!!"

Maybe you need to work on your projection issues. You've been demonizing me - a person who is doing what I can to help those in need of organs, including participating in research that we hope will one day make the donor system largely unnecessary - for showing compassion for others, and thus you want to pretend that I was demonizing someone by *gasp* not passing any judgment at all.

Meanwhile, if you want to see some villainization of this woman, wait and see what happens if the majority of home voters pick Contestant #1 and she picks Contestant #3. Watch the internet/newspaper/TV slurs fly then...

Controversy attracts an audience, but whether it'll draw attention to organ donor shortage or whether people will just view it as some sort of freak show for whom the consequences for the losers is most likely death, then I don'y know. In real life people usually don't get to choose who their organs go to (unless, of course there's some sort of family connection). This might just agitate the organ donor situation more by making people want to know who their organs go to (which isn't always possible, and which is generally a waste of precious time and a complication of affairs for doctors). For promoting organ donation I'm all for it, for the other implications, then it might cause more harm than good.

Precisely. Although I would go as far as to say it will most likely cause more harm than good.

What makes the "voluntary" part bogus is the fact that it's next to impossible to get a kidney on demand.

These people are desperate. It's not like there's a good supply of kidneys available, unless you happen to contract with the Chinese government for the organs of an executed prisoner.

I can't wait for the 'celebrity' version of this. Anyone for Jade Goody's pancreas...

Damn, you all just convinced me to try to find the time this evening to watch that show and check it out so I can give some sensible coments for a change.

Well, that was a fun watch. I stopped halfway, because it was so embarrassing but turns out it was... a hoax. n_n

Well, that was a fun watch. I stopped halfway, because it was so embarrassing but turns out it was... a hoax. n_n
LOL, that was a good one:D

But I prefered watching Aliens:)

It was really hair-cringingly bad.

They made it extra doubleplus revolting with "So why do you think you deserve her kidney more than him and her?" type questions. And little presentation movies with soppy music. The woman donating the kidney could ask all sorts of probing questions about their life, and there were constant reminders to SMS now with polls and crap

Hilarious!

LOL, that was a good one:D

But I prefered watching Aliens:)

Heh, I decided to watch Alien once I saw it was on. Going back to watch Alien 3...

I think BNN has made their point though. there is a lot more atttention to Organ Donation than a week ago. The best example is this thread ;)

so what was the point?

were they making fun of those who were interested in helping a dying woman decide what to do with her kidney?

were they making fun of those who found it outrageous?

were they making fun of reality shows in general?

was it a hoax the whole time or only after it was obvious that they were crossing the line?

It was to raise awareness about being a donor :)

I didn't see it, but I love the fact that it was a hoax. Go dutchies.. I mean: Go us :D

Posted back on 26-05-2007, 2:55 PM

Seriously though: what are the odds that this will all be revealed as a publicity stunt come broadcast time and that the donor isn't in fact terminally ill?

...I believe I win the thread.

It was to raise awareness about being a donor :)

I didn't see it, but I love the fact that it was a hoax. Go dutchies.. I mean: Go us :D

im thinking that hoax probably isnt the right word then.

maybe "it was staged" is the better way of saying it.

so no one was sick, they were just highlighting the plight of those who are in desperate need of donated organs?

Yup, thats about it.

Yahoo news article (posted 41 mins ago):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070601/ap_on_re_eu/netherlands_organ_show

im thinking that hoax probably isnt the right word then.

maybe "it was staged" is the better way of saying it.

so no one was sick, they were just highlighting the plight of those who are in desperate need of donated organs?

Actually, the people who needed a kidney were real. The donor was healthy though :)

This raises a point: given how little democratic influence we have on issues that are within the ken of the general public, how the fuck could it ever be right that we can apply majority rule to issues of life and death in the case of a kidney transplant?

Fuck the Dutch TV channel. It was a cheap, tawdry publicity stunt and I'm convinced they cared nothing for the ethics behind the issue. And these are the guys who came up with Big Brother, too? Cunts.

Well, in honour of the fact that the Aliens films were on other channels at the same time... I say we nuke the studios. It's the only way to be sure.

Actually, the people who needed a kidney were real. The donor was healthy though :)

do these people really think that its reasonable to expect bunches of people to start giving away one of their kidney's to strangers? its a rare person who is willing to compromise their health for someone they dont know.

do these people really think that its reasonable to expect bunches of people to start giving away one of their kidney's to strangers? its a rare person who is willing to compromise their health for someone they dont know.

They just wanted to raise the issue about becoming a donor for when you die. Many people simply don't think about becoming one...

They just wanted to raise the issue about becoming a donor for when you die. Many people simply don't think about becoming one...
Oh, bollocks. They're a TV channel, ergo it was a cheap stunt. Ratings are all that matters.

Oh, bollocks. They're a TV channel, ergo it was a cheap stunt. Ratings are all that matters.

So because you work for a TV-Channel,
for instance as their Boss,
you can't be a human to,
who wants to make the world a better place?

I don't work there so I can't be sure, but it seems to me that Bart De Graaf, one of the poeple who started the Network, and headed it for quite a long time, collected a lot of kindred spirits around him as his build this network. The whole teamspirit feel of BNN is imence. Like one happy family. So that when Bart died his friends and co-workers must have felt like shit, sad for the loss, and angry for their incapability of undoing such injustice. As the years passed this anger turned to outrage when they noticed how easy it would be to change things. By changing the Law from making it necessary for poeple to put themselves on a list of 'Donors after death', to the law of 12 other European countries where donorship is automatic, and only those who put themselves on a list of absolute refusers wont be used to keep others alive. This would half the waithing time.

Poeple are lazy, so you can give them the same rights, fi. the choice of becoming a donor after death, or not becoming a donor after death, and so just by changing the choice for witch they have to get of their lazy-asses and walk/drive to city hall to declare their choice to be diferent then the National policy, you can change the outcome. In this case the number of donors and safed lifes.

The fact is, ratings might have had something to do with it, although I'm not so sure that they could predict what the short and longterm effect on their ratings would be considering that this is the first show of it's type, and a controversial one at that. But I for one have made the choice to believe that good intentions were there main motivation, since I know the feeling of having lost someone dear to me and feeling helpless. If I had had the means to make that clear to the world, like they have, I would have.

Bjorn Barnix,
Enlightend Despot of Leuvenation

Posted back on 26-05-2007, 2:55 PM



...I believe I win the thread.

Your good.


Wanna tell me my future?:p

Wanna tell me my future?:p

Yup,
you'll love some more,
with some happy and some sad moments,
and then you die.

Sorry,
I didn't have time to go into detail,
its kind of a mess out there in the futural astral plane.;)

Bjorn Barnix,
Enlighted Despot of Leuvenation

Yup,
you'll love some more,
with some happy and some sad moments,
and then you die.

Sorry,
I didn't have time to go into detail,
its kind of a mess out there in the futural astral plane.;)

Bjorn Barnix,
Enlighted Despot of Leuvenation

Damn. I'm gonna DIE?!

There goes my plans.:(

Oh, bollocks. They're a TV channel, ergo it was a cheap stunt. Ratings are all that matters.

BNN is a public channel, meaning it gets its money from memberships and government grants. Ratings are not that relevant for the survival of the station, though of course they indeed like many people to watch their donor awareness show.

do these people really think that its reasonable to expect bunches of people to start giving away one of their kidney's to strangers? its a rare person who is willing to compromise their health for someone they dont know.

Unlikely. Most doctors are (rightfully) very leery of doing a live organ donation using a donor who isn't close to the patient. There is a non-negligible risk of death from the surgery and very little study has followed live donors to see if they are more likley to experience organ failure later in life. In some places (like the Netherlands, apparently), such donations are not legally allowed.


I don't work there so I can't be sure, but it seems to me that Bart De Graaf, one of the poeple who started the Network, and headed it for quite a long time, collected a lot of kindred spirits around him as his build this network. The whole teamspirit feel of BNN is imence. Like one happy family. So that when Bart died his friends and co-workers must have felt like shit, sad for the loss, and angry for their incapability of undoing such injustice. As the years passed this anger turned to outrage when they noticed how easy it would be to change things. By changing the Law from making it necessary for poeple to put themselves on a list of 'Donors after death', to the law of 12 other European countries where donorship is automatic, and only those who put themselves on a list of absolute refusers wont be used to keep others alive. This would half the waithing time.

I agree that an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, system would be better - in my country as well. But it doesn't sound like such a system was even mentioned in the show. At best, they made a farce of the donor system. At worst, they've turned off potential donors to the whole idea with their "hoax."

Fuck the Dutch TV channel. It was a cheap, tawdry publicity stunt and I'm convinced they cared nothing for the ethics behind the issue. And these are the guys who came up with Big Brother, too? Cunts.The founder of that TV channel died 5 years ago, he was a kidney patient. He would have done it the same way.

And no, Big Brother was thought up by another company.:rolleyes:

The founder of that TV channel died 5 years ago, he was a kidney patient. He would have done it the same way.

And no, Big Brother was thought up by another company.:rolleyes:The Broadcaster was BNN, but the company that produced the show was Endemol - the big brother people.

They did, in fact, lobby for an opt-out system during the show. As well as tell people how they could easily become donors under the current system. They put the form on the website, that sort of thing.

It has had an effect already. Our minister of education, for example, decided to become a donor himself due to all the commotion - and the liberal D66 party is going to raise the issue of organ donation in parliament.

I think this was a neat stint.

The Broadcaster was BNN, but the company that produced the show was Endemol - the big brother people.

Endemol are behind pretty much everything that happens in Dutch television and film. Inane reality TV is just what they specialise in. :rolleyes:

Endemol are behind pretty much everything that happens in Dutch television and film. Inane reality TV is just what they specialise in. :rolleyes:It's the price the Dutch people have to pay for having legalised pot. It's karma or something.

They did, in fact, lobby for an opt-out system during the show. As well as tell people how they could easily become donors under the current system. They put the form on the website, that sort of thing.

It has had an effect already. Our minister of education, for example, decided to become a donor himself due to all the commotion - and the liberal D66 party is going to raise the issue of organ donation in parliament.

I think this was a neat stint.

its a lame stunt that insults the intelligence of the channel's viewers but it is at least not the disgusting exploitation of desperately ill people that it promoted itself to be.

Insults their intelligence? Almost everyone bought it. :D

Results

And, well over a month later, the results:

12.000 donorforms were handed in. Of these 7.300 were new registrees. The remainder consisted of people that had previously stated they would not donate but now wished to change that and people that reaffirmed their donorship.

Since 43 000 people downloaded the form after the show 30 000 forms were not handed in (sofar, though I personally do not expect much).

In total the Netherlands now has the wishes of 5,1 million people over 12 years old registered, of which 2,9 million are donors.

Source (Dutch): http://www.nu.nl/news/1155955/10/rss/Donorshow_levert_duizenden_extra_donoren_op.html

I support this show as long as it continues to make conservatives explode in balls of self-righteous rage.