NationStates Jolt Archive

I see no reason to wait for somebody to die before they take their organs.
The problem with selling your organs after you die is that if somebody doesn't want to pay you there's not that much you can do.

Yay! The thread is mine!

Well your not going to need them when your dead, are you?

Unless otherwise indicated...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6902519.stm

Here, the UK thinks about going to a plan where if you end up dead at the hospital, they will harvest your organs unless you've indicated that you "opt out" of the program.

They give the example of Spain, where the number of organs available for donation went up - and the example of Sweden, where with the same "opt out" program, the rate of donation went down.

Do you think this is a solution to the shortage of donated organs? Or do you think that the number of organs available would go up if people were able to sell them - even after death?

Isn't that just a reverse of volunteer donation? Instead of not participating you just opt out.

They might catch lazy people, I guess. Catch 'em sleeping. :p

It's pretty much bullshit. I mean, you're not going to go to a hospital to register yourself as an "opt out" patient. Likely the first opportunity the authorities are going to get to harvest your organs is when you come in unconscious on a stretcher, incapable of letting your wishes be known.

MAN:
Hello. Uhh, can we have your liver?
MR. BROWN:
My what?
MAN:
Your liver. It's a large, ehh, glandular organ in your abdomen.
ERIC:
[sniff]
MAN:
You know, it's, uh,-- it's reddish-brown. It's sort of, uhh,--
MR. BROWN:
Yeah,-- y-- y-- yeah, I know what it is, but... I'm using it, eh.
ERIC:
Come on, sir.
MR. BROWN:
Hey! Hey! Stop!
ERIC:
Don't muck us about.
MR. BROWN:
Stop! Hey! Hey! Stop it. Hey!
MAN:
Hallo.
MR. BROWN:
Ge-- get off.
MAN:
What's this, then? Mmh.
MR. BROWN:
A liver donor's card.
MAN:
Need we say more?
ERIC:
No!
MR. BROWN:
Listen! I can't give it to you now. It says, 'in the event of death'. Uh. Oh! Ah. Ah. Eh.
MAN:
No one who has ever had their liver taken out by us has survived.
MR. BROWN:
Agh.
ERIC:
Just lie there, sir. It won't take a minute.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MAN:
Zip it up.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
'Ere. What's going on?
MAN:
Uh, he's donating his liver, madam.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
Is this because he took out one of those silly cards?
MAN:
That's right, madam.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
Typical of him!
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
He goes down to the public library, he sees a few signs up, comes home all full of good intentions.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
He gives blood. He does cold research. All that sort of thing.
MAN:
Oh.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
ERIC:
Ehh.
MRS. BROWN:
What do you, uh,-- what do you do with them all, anyway?
ERIC:
They all go to saving lives, madam.
MRS. BROWN:
Mmm. That's what he used to say. 'It's all for the good of the country' he used to say.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
Do you think it's all for the good of the country?
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MAN:
Hm?
MRS. BROWN:
Do you think it's all for the good of the country?
MAN:
Well, I wouldn't know about that, madam. We're just, uh, doing our jobs, you know.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MRS. BROWN:
You're not... doctors, then?
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]
MAN:
Oh. Blimey no.
MR. BROWN:
[screaming]

They give the example of Spain, where the number of organs available for donation went up - and the example of Sweden, where with the same "opt out" program, the rate of donation went down.
I want to note here that "rate of donation" and "organs available" are not the same thing. Did Sweden measure the number of organs available or only the number donated? The number available going up and the number of donations going down are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to voluntarily donate when they are going to take them regardless.

It's pretty much bullshit. I mean, you're not going to go to a hospital to register yourself as an "opt out" patient. Likely the first opportunity the authorities are going to get to harvest your organs is when you come in unconscious on a stretcher, incapable of letting your wishes be known.
And then you wake up two days later in a bath tub full of ice :rolleyes:
Apathy and stupidity like this is why we need an "opt out" system instead of "opt in."

I want to note here that "rate of donation" and "organs available" are not the same thing. Did Sweden measure the number of organs available or only the number donated? The number available going up and the number of donations going down are not mutually exclusive. You don't need to voluntarily donate when they are going to take them regardless.

What do you think the best program would be then?

What do you think the best program would be then?
I was making no opinion as to what program is best in that statement. I was pointing out that your comparison was disingenuous (when isn't it).

I'd combine a system of presumed consent with giving priority to donors when deciding who to give organ transplants to.

I was making no opinion as to what program is best in that statement. I was pointing out that your comparison was disingenuous (when isn't it).

Gee, in your paranoid mind, is there some evil rationale behind everything I post?

Gee, in your paranoid mind, is there some evil rationale behind everything I post?
Yes, and there usually is.

Spain's "donation rate" went up as well after presumed consent, I see you failed to mention. Sweden's "went down." It is impossible to tell why from the article. It could be because the Swedish people arn't apathetic or it could be in the way and method things are defined. The article didn't say organs available went down in Sweden, just donations did.

Yes, and there usually is.

Spain's "donation rate" went up as well after presumed consent, I see you failed to mention. Sweden's "went down." It is impossible to tell why from the article. It could be because the Swedish people arn't apathetic or it could be in the way and method things are defined.

It could be because of the way the program was presented. If the program is introduced without fanfare, people have no idea they're going to be distributed as parts until it's too late. If you make a big public announcement, a lot of people MAY opt out.

Still, you haven't answered my question - what's your solution?

We've got a chronic shortage of both organs and blood, and it would come to no surprise to me if people were dying as a result. So long as there's an opt-out, so one cannot be accused of harvesting organs without taking peoples' wishes into account, I've no problem with presumed consent.

We've got a chronic shortage of both organs and blood, and it would come to no surprise to me if people were dying as a result. So long as there's an opt-out, so one cannot be accused of harvesting organs without taking peoples' wishes into account, I've no problem with presumed consent.

It would also be important to make sure that the public are made absolutely aware of the change over

It could be because of the way the program was presented. If the program is introduced without fanfare, people have no idea they're going to be distributed as parts until it's too late. If you make a big public announcement, a lot of people MAY opt out.
Except Spain's presumed opt-out program has the doctors asking family members if they consent. Did you read the article?
All we know is Sweden's donation rate went down, like I said, that is not mutually exclusive from available organs going up.

Still, you haven't answered my question - what's your solution?
I said it in the original post which I edited in response to the other guy.

If organ donation was mandatory, why wouldn't organs be harvested from executed prisoners?

I'd combine a system of presumed consent with giving priority to donors when deciding who to give organ transplants to.

I have concerns about using that kind of system. Basically you're saying that those who contribute more to the system should have priority?

The media would do a great job of that.

Yet people could still claim that they'd never been made aware. The government would have to send out information to every home to be certain

It would also be important to make sure that the public are made absolutely aware of the change over
The media would do a great job of that.

Yet people could still claim that they'd never been made aware. The government would have to send out information to every home to be certain
I think that would be a bit extreme. A radio/TV advertising campaign, plus information at hospitals, GPs surgeries, would be adequate. That, on top of the likely media scuffle, would be enough.

It's pretty much bullshit. I mean, you're not going to go to a hospital to register yourself as an "opt out" patient. Likely the first opportunity the authorities are going to get to harvest your organs is when you come in unconscious on a stretcher, incapable of letting your wishes be known.

In Italy we have an "opt out" system. We are suggested by the Ministry of Health to carry a small form, sent us by the Ministry itself, inside our IDs. We are to specify, on this form, whether we want to donate our organs after death or not. Since it is an "opt out", if you lack such form, it is like consenting to organ donation - although hospitals are required to try to contact your relatives in case you lack the form.

Generally, I see organ donation as a sort of "necessary evil".
"Evil" because organ transplantation creates the huge underground market of organs - I think it is wrong to sell and buy human body parts, human life shouldn't be object of trade.
"Necessary" because we don't have (yet) synthetical or otherwise artificial replacements for organs. Some mechanical hearts work fine - and that's good - but still there is no viable replacement for lungs, or kidneys. So I can accept the idea of life-saving organ transplantation as a "bridge" solution, until biology and medicine will develop different methods of replacing organs without taking them from dead people (like partial liver transplantation, or mechanical hearts).

My two €cents, of course.

I think that would be a bit extreme. A radio/TV advertising campaign, plus information at hospitals, GPs surgeries, would be adequate. That, on top of the likely media scuffle, would be enough.

Apparently it's the Italian way (I love Risottias timing lol)

Generally, I see organ donation as a sort of "necessary evil".
"Evil" because organ transplantation creates the huge underground market of organs - I think it is wrong to sell and buy human body parts, human life shouldn't be object of trade.
"Necessary" because we don't have (yet) synthetical or otherwise artificial replacements for organs. Some mechanical hearts work fine - and that's good - but still there is no viable replacement for lungs, or kidneys. So I can accept the idea of life-saving organ transplantation as a "bridge" solution, until biology and medicine will develop different methods of replacing organs without taking them from dead people (like partial liver transplantation, or mechanical hearts).

My two €cents, of course.
I think you mixed up necessary and evil there.

I have concerns about using that kind of system. Basically you're saying that those who contribute more to the system should have priority?

Well, nobody's actually contributing to the system until they're dead. It's more of a Little Red Hen clause: if you're not prepared to be an organ donor then why should you expect to receive a transplant? Anyone who's capable of being a donor and isn't doesn't deserve a transplant, especially if presumed consent is in place.

This is organs from people who have died, not from living people - so no-one is going to wake minus a kidney after coming in for an in-growing toe nail operation. You are dead what does it matter what happens to your body. If you do object that much for some nutty religious reasons you can get off your arse and opt out. I really don't see what the problem is.

I think you mixed up necessary and evil there.

Huh. Why?:confused:

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3694/optinoutdo9.jpg
Effective consent rates, by country. Explicit consent (opt-in, gold) and presumed consent (opt-out, blue).

Do Defaults Save Lives?
Eric J. Johnson and Daniel Goldstein
Science, Vol. 302. no. 5649, pp. 1338 - 1339

Well, nobody's actually contributing to the system until they're dead. It's more of a Little Red Hen clause: if you're not prepared to be an organ donor then why should you expect to receive a transplant? Anyone who's capable of being a donor and isn't doesn't deserve a transplant, especially if presumed consent is in place.

I assume you would make exceptions for those who can't donate?

I assume you would make exceptions for those who can't donate?

Well, nobody's actually contributing to the system until they're dead. It's more of a Little Red Hen clause: if you're not prepared to be an organ donor then why should you expect to receive a transplant? Anyone who's capable of being a donor and isn't doesn't deserve a transplant, especially if presumed consent is in place.

*nods* :)

This is organs from people who have died, not from living people - so no-one is going to wake minus a kidney after coming in for an in-growing toe nail operation. You are dead what does it matter what happens to your body. If you do object that much for some nutty religious reasons you can get off your arse and opt out. I really don't see what the problem is.

So, if your relative needs a kidney, and there are no matches in the system, you can always become a serial killer... after all, they won't need the kidney after they're dead...

*nods* :)

Damn you :p

So, if your relative needs a kidney, and there are no matches in the system, you can always become a serial killer... after all, they won't need the kidney after they're dead...

Not exactly very likely in the UK, and probably fairly easy to detect. Though as ever always wise to protect information about you as much as possible.

So, if your relative needs a kidney, and there are no matches in the system, you can always become a serial killer... after all, they won't need the kidney after they're dead...

You'd have to be one hell of a lucky serial killer to get a match

the example of Sweden, where with the same "opt out" program, the rate of donation went down.

that isn't what your link says
"However, Sweden - which also has an opt-out law - has a lower donation rate than the UK, suggesting that other issues may be at play."

also, i wondering if maybe somebody got rate and absolute number mixed up in the article...

This is NOT a difficult question.

For starters, we erect baby farms and keep them in stasis tubes until they're old enough to have their organs harvested. Of course, they'd have to be genetically altered so they wouldn't have brains. Or at least, brains that make them sentiant.

Sure the religious nuts may not agree with it, but what have they done for us recently?

When the demand for organs becomes to great, we simply harvest unsuspecting natives from corrupt third world nations such as Canada, Mozambique, and Tuvulu. Obviously, we pay off the governments so they don't complain about it.

Hell, I'm quite surprised that the US government hasn't even started something like this yet.

We should grow all organs on the backs of naked mice.

Compulsory organ donation upon death. It's not like you're using them any more.

Compulsory organ donation upon death. It's not like you're using them any more.

but i need my organs placed in canopic jars and buried with me in my elaborate tomb so that they can follow me into the afterlife. also, i need to keep my heart so it can be weighed against a feather by anubis.

You'd have to be one hell of a lucky serial killer to get a match

Or, just keep running people over with your car until you get a match...

Or, just keep running people over with your car until you get a match...

But you might squish all those nice tasty organs.....ermmm I mean medically necessary organs

How about organ donation as a method of capital punishment?

And then you wake up two days later in a bath tub full of ice :rolleyes:
Apathy and stupidity like this is why we need an "opt out" system instead of "opt in."

Don't be ridiculous. It's perfectly obvious that most people, who might well not WANT their organs taken (for whatever reason. Personally, I don't imagine I'll have any use for mine after I'm dead. I'd still like to keep my eyes though, not sure why), are not going to want to go and resgister as "opt outers". It's a system designed to shame people. The result is people being rushed to hospital unconscious, because they've been in a car crash or whatever, not being able to state their wishes, and then being diced by surgeons when they flatline as a matter of course.

I just picked randomly,... what's the difference between opt-in and opt-out?

Don't be ridiculous. It's perfectly obvious that most people, who might well not WANT their organs taken (for whatever reason. Personally, I don't imagine I'll have any use for mine after I'm dead. I'd still like to keep my eyes though, not sure why), are not going to want to go and resgister as "opt outers". It's a system designed to shame people. The result is people being rushed to hospital unconscious, because they've been in a car crash or whatever, not being able to state their wishes, and then being diced by surgeons when they flatline as a matter of course.

It isn't designed to shame people. It's a system to beat apathy and laziness.

Opt-in.

If you essentially force people to give organs, you'll have protests and people will just resent the whole idea, leading to more deaths, really.

Opt-in.

If you essentially force people to give organs, you'll have protests and people will just resent the whole idea, leading to more deaths, really.

You'd need to show evidence of this happening elsewhere

You'd need to show evidence of this happening elsewhere
Sweden.

Mandatory and harvested from executed prisoners! Dead people don't need organs but living people need. Very simple decision.

Opt-in.

If you essentially force people to give organs, you'll have protests and people will just resent the whole idea, leading to more deaths, really.

Opt-in but have more education about it......you know some people still think you can't have an open casket funeral if you donate your organs?

I can't donate, not that I wouldn't want to, but I don't think having another piece of paper to carry to me to the hospital when I am nearly dying is all that convenient. What are they going to do if you don't have your opt out paper work? take them anyway?

I just picked randomly,... what's the difference between opt-in and opt-out?

If it's opt-out it's assumed that you consent to donate your organs unless you tell them otherwise. If it's opt-in it's assumed that you don't consent to donate your organs unless you tell them otherwise. At least I think it's like that. I guess it's opt-in here, because they asked me when I got my driver's license if I would be willing to donate my organs if I died, and I said yes.

Opt-in but have more education about it......you know some people still think you can't have an open casket funeral if you donate your organs?
I could see why people would say that, but aye, kind of silly.

Opt-in system, if we must have it all. The government should not presume people will be fine with having their bodies desecrated after death.

There is a massive shortage of organs - which means there needs to be an increase in the supply. The best way to get a supply is to give incentives for organ donation.

Certain organs, like kidneys or even liver (you donate a chunk, which grows back), may be taken from living donors. Paying potential donors a large sum will likely encourage many people to donate - so long as the doctors are clear about the risks of donation, such that any donor is aware of the implications, I do not see any problem with this.

Cadaverous organ donation should offer the families compensation to encourage donation. People refuse donation out of ignorance or little irrational fears or even just petty possessiveness refusing to donate the organs to random strangers because they see no benefit. There may be a slight incidence of family members encouraging death to inherit this money, but no more likely than current incidences due to life insurance.

Just look at blood donation - I am not aware of a single country that has plenty of blood on hand at all times. People need greater encouragement to donate blood, especially considering the quality of the donation is important. The best method I could think of would be to give a $100 tax write-off for blood donation. This will likely only encourage people who are healthy enough to donate blood, so quality problems associated with paying cash, while compensating someone for their time.

I have to take an hour or two off work to go down to the red cross to get a needle jabbed in my arm, so I tend not to donate often. Offer me a $100 tax write off would get me to donate more than just once a year when they advertise the blood drive. Since hospitals can charge $250/pint plus installation, listing the donation as being a $100 value is not unreasonable. That would save me a good $35 on taxes.

I think opt out sounds good, as long as they don't constantly advertise about how you can opt out.

edit: oh and also teh clone0rz

I think opt out sounds good, as long as they don't constantly advertise about how you can opt out.

so you want to trick people into organ donation? why don't you just say it's opt-in but then take them anyway?

Good thing I choose opt-in. I don't mind donating as long as people asks for it.

I think it's an ok idea. I mean, I've basically signed up for "let my family decide" because I don't want to think about my own mortaility. If I was already opted in then I probably wouldn't opt out.

so you want to trick people into organ donation? why don't you just say it's opt-in but then take them anyway?

Nah, these crazy hippys start whining about "human rights" or some malarky whenever you do that.

Why are so many people selecting "mandatory, plus harvest from executed prisoners"? It shouldnt have even be in the list; it is redundant.
If organ collection is mandatory, then executed prisoners (who were executed in a way that preserved the organs) would already have their organs taken.

Nah, these crazy hippys start whining about "human rights" or some malarky whenever you do that.

indeed.

Opt-in.

If you essentially force people to give organs, you'll have protests and people will just resent the whole idea, leading to more deaths, really.

oh?

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/3694/optinoutdo9.jpg
Effective consent rates, by country. Explicit consent (opt-in, gold) and presumed consent (opt-out, blue).

Do Defaults Save Lives?
Eric J. Johnson and Daniel Goldstein
Science, Vol. 302. no. 5649, pp. 1338 - 1339

bump

bump

If the US had a different method of execution that didn't thrash the organs, and the prisoner hadn't opted out of an opt-out program, would it be ethical in your view to harvest his organs?

the solution?

there isnt one.

there will never be enough organs for all the potential need.

therefore i would remind everyone that no one OWES anyone their body parts. until such time as we can grow organs at need, anyone needing a transplant will have to wait until one becomes available for them. they will be given only by those willing to give and only on the basis of medical criteria.

If the US had a different method of execution that didn't thrash the organs, and the prisoner hadn't opted out of an opt-out program, would it be ethical in your view to harvest his organs?

a sort of complex question. on the one hand, the execution itself is unethical, so knowingly benefiting from unethical actions strikes me as also being plausibly unethical. and only requiring executed prisoners (or worse, prisoners in general) to be mandatory donors certainly seems unjust. but not because of the organ donation itself. rather, it strikes me as unjust to not then take the next step and make it mandatory for everyone.

i'm ok with the opt out option, because essentially nobody opts out in practice, but i can't see any real ethical reason to not make it obligatory - though practical reasons, perhaps. you are dead, so i don't see a plausible sense in which your organs remain under your power other than as a matter of property. but property can only justly exist to benefit society, and can rightfully be regulated to serve that end. since there is no benefit to you in keeping your organs (being dead and all), and there is a significant benefit to society to do otherwise, this seems like a perfectly legitimate move to me.

in fact, i can't think of any plausible objection to organ donation in general. even allowing religious nonsense in, pretty much everybody strikes out in the global north these days. the heaven they all believe in doesn't appear to require your physical kidneys.

therefore i would remind everyone that no one OWES anyone their body parts.

well, not when they are someone, at least...