Slashdot Mirror
Ending Organ Donor Shortages?
Tracy2112 writes "An interesting and recurring science fiction theme is the idea of black-market traffic in human body parts -- as Larry Niven termed it, "organlegging". According to this USA Today's Op-Ed piece on Yahoo, we're getting closer . . . including
LifeSharers.com, , an organization working to sign up "preferred donors" who agree to preferentially donate to other LifeSharer members. Is this a great way to reward people for being generous with their unused body parts -- or a scary flashback to how early 'subscription-only' fire departments worked?"
In the latest issue of Wired they have a page detailing how your body is roughly worth a cool 46 million
Easy enough for someone to be a condemned criminal in, say, China and wake up a piece at a time. Brings in lots of solid western currency too--far higher profit than prison labour to make running shoes.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
They already have a rule to (somewhat) alleviate this - there's a 180 day waiting period after you join before you qulify to receive preferential access to other member's organs. See their FAQ, 6th question.
Getting more people to sign consent-forms, and even making sure that families aren't able to stop organ donation when consent has been given by the donor, won't solve the problem.
Truth of the matter is that there are simply not enough donors / not the right donors to provide all necessary organs. Where I live (Belgium) organ donation works as an opt-out system. There's a law that says that everybody is an organ donor (when they die) unless they have a certain form in their wallet stating the opposite. Hardly anybody opts out yet still there are not enough organs. Reason for this is that people that die tend to have been old and sick, or (if it's someone young) have most likely been in a traffic accident. None of these are the right circumstances for organ donation. Add to this the fact that you need matching blood types, have very little time for the organ harvasting etc... and it gets pretty obvious that taking organs from humans as spare bodyparts will only help a small percentage of cases.
I'd place my money on using organs specifically grown for harvasting: e.g. pigs are used to grow skin that helps burn victims.
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
"Subscription" fire departments collect revinue two ways, (a) by billing monthly insurance sytle, or (b) by billing you for the number of trucks, men, and feet of hose laid when there's an actual emergency.
Subscription fire departments don't ignore EMS and fire calls from people who didn't pay their premium - they just bill them on the back end.
Similarly, no priority is given by order of who paid up front and who didn't. EMS and fire calls are processed by order of severity, just like any non-subscription (read: municipal) emergency service provider.
Rural/Metro is one such company. There are numerous others - especially in the EMS (esp ambulance) business.
This is VASTLY different from giving priority to subscribers first for life-threatening medical conditions.
The black market for organs already exists. Please read "Kill and cull: China rejects doctor's testimony". This article gives a chilling description of how Chinese "doctors" harvest organs from prisoners while they are still alive. These organs then go to wealthy customers in a growing black market.
I live in the city of Fullerton, CA. Like most municipalites in the U.S., it has faced a severe funding crunch over the past few years. In response, they have established a Paramedic Subscription Program. Basically, if you call a paramedic, you get billed by the city $200 for Basic Life Support and $300 for Advanced Life Support. If, on the other hand, you sign up for the service and pay an annual fee of $30, you do not pay. Ambulance costs (as they are pretty much everywhere in the U.S.) are not covered. Regardless of your payment status, though, they will come if you call.
While I have issues with calling paramedics and being charged in the first place (and, yes, I understand why they're doing it - to make ends meet and reduce frivilous calls), I can see where this fee makes a lot of sense to a business owner, who might see numerous 911 calls over a year (especially restaraunts, with choking/heart attack calls).
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
The August issue of Wired (11.08) has a spread titled "How To Sell Your Body For $46 million" (pp46-47). Not sure if it is online yet but some of the highlights:
Fluids and Tissues: $43million
Lungs: $116,000
Heart: $57,000
Eyes: $8,000
Brain: $662,000
Kidney: $92,000
Pancreas: $46,000
Small Intestine: $72,000
Liver: $474,000
There is a more detailed breakdown, but those are the major points.
Small story from reuters: It may be illegal, immoral and certainly ill-advised, but selling every usable part of your body could fetch upward of $45 million
The first organization that learns to grow these organs individually will make a killing.
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
This is complete and utter bullshit.
The CAUSE of the shortage situation is certainly not selfishness or paranoia. First, the demand for organ donation has increased. Why? Simple, technological advances, particular in surgery and immunological typing, allow a greater number of procedures and organs to be done. We are better in sheer surgical technique, as well as understanding what organs will be accepted from and to whom.
So, the sheer number percentage and in volume of organ donors have gone up. However, the number of people who want or need organs have increased. Demand has outstripped supply. Hence, a market has developed.
Remember that word above, cause? The need of organ donation is not the fault of the donor. Frequently, and this required revision in the organ donation system to our present day system, it's the receiver's lifestyle--somebody didn't take care of their first organ. I don't see why anyone should die sooner without the full course of potential treatment because someone didn't take of what was given to them in the first place.
Now, there are certainly a huge number of other donations, due to disease, genetics, accidents, where there is a demand. But you seem to think that people being selfish first is the cause for pressure on the system. You don't, at all, offset some of the cause for this pressure--the organ receiver population puts pressure on the donor system too, because a good percentage of receiver's led crappy lifestyles in the first place. Remove those, as the organ donation system has compensated, and demand is still there, but much less so than you imagine.
Second, what I give of my body is MINE FIRST, not yours to take. This isn't an income tax debate. It has nothing to do with selfishness but sanctity of self. While this may appear selfish to you, our society has chosen this line by action as well as by legal and health ramifications. If we did not follow such rules, we could go over to your house, shoot your sorry ass, and harvest your organs. After all, 10+ people could survive for your one sacrifice. If you protest, well, darn. You're just being selfish, heh? So give them up. 10 people are surely more worthwhile than your measily butt.
"Doctors would be able to harvest organs from those patients who are most certainly dead."
You have no reason to believe that their unethical practices would decrease. Why? Because they are bound legally and ethically to make sure the person is dead in the first place, but they don't always. They, not the people, have instilled this fear by being too obsessive-compulsive, with their first in line attitudes.
See, a lot to do with organ donation is simply not supply. It's geographical location, time/disease progression, typing, size of the organ, age of the individuals, etc. Sheer organ supply in and of itself is just one issue; having the *right* organ is a big deal too (and, of course, sometimes where increased pressure occurs, hopefully ethically).
A complete counter example is that doctors may approach families of non organ donors to get them to sign off on organ donation too.
Also, if a large majority of society became donors, the number of optional, flippant procedures would increase, pushing increasing demand, again outstripping supply. The market that we see now would still remain (although, ironicly, probably be more hectic but saner--optional procedures mean big money and more front money).
Yes, yes, I realize you believe that everything would go away if everyone gave. It doesn't work that way all the time.
I, personally, took the organ donation off my driver's license in the past year. After medical school and reading the cases, as well as knowing my colleagues, I sadly no longer trust the system. You think I'm scared? Damn straight, I am.
So much so, I am considering writing a note attached to my license explicitly stating that family members cannot sign away my donation rights when or if I cannot decide for myself.
Selfish? Damn straight. I do not find it acceptable to receive substandard health care because someone else wants my body parts.
I can't be sure how it works in your area of the world, but here (BC, Canada) the doctors don't actually know you're an organ donor when you're dragged into an emergency room. There is no driver's license decal or any other sort of identification you carry with you as an organ donor. Rather, if you're ever in a situation where you're braindead but stable on life support, they'll check the registry and see if you're on it. Then, they'll verify that you're actually braindead, and take your organs.
In theory, that's how it works. You can, of course, claim that that's a lie. In that case, I can't prove you wrong, but I can only say that your opinion of the medical profession rather low.
Well, that's just speculation, and once again, it only reflects a strong bias against the medical profession on your part.
But to put a lighter spin on the whole issue... let's say they're a bit more eager to let you die when you're an organ donor. Is that really so bad? In a situation where you're at the edge of life/death, you may end up brain-damaged if you recover after they've been shocking you for a few minutes. You may end up retarded and drooling for the rest of your life. Is death so much worse?
One way or another, I'm an organ donor. I can't see a logical reason why anyone wouldn't be.
Nix absolutably seriousness.
In a situation where you're at the edge of life/death, you may end up brain-damaged if you recover...
Well I don't know how much of a "lighter spin" that is, but as a firefighter/paramedic of nine years I can attest that substantial brain damage is a common outcome. So common, in fact, that my wife and I have legal papers refusing resuscitation and life support.
Yes, miraculous recoveries do happen, but "Baywatch saves," as we call them, are exceedingly rare.
Many localities allow Physicians' Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment or similar papers which can be prepared in advance. Directives can be situation-specific, i.e. try everything if it's trauma but pull the plug if it's cardiac.
Most important, discuss your wishes about death and donation with your loved ones. Having made your feelings clear in advance makes a very stressful situation more approachable for the family.
Hangings aren't simple. They can turn into decapitations if the drop is too long for the wieght/neck thickness of the "participant". Decapitations are such it is believed you will see your head roll off your body (brigns whole new meaning to the guillotine). If the drop is too short, you slowly axphyiate the person. This takes longer than you think, and supposedly quite gruesome to watch.
There is a certain "sweet spot" that's pretty hard to hit, where you snap the person's neck, killing them instantly. However the procedure is far from simple. And really gruesome.
Want to see every step I took to start my company? http://www.rowdylabs.com/blogs/pitchtothegods