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?"
This seems like a good idea to me, except for one or two potential problems.
What if people wanted to leave the list? Would they have to return thier organs? If not, people could join if they needed organs, get the organs, then quit. Saying 'you can't join the list if you already need an organ' wouldn't be a very good rule, but 'you can't leave the list' wouldn't be too hot either.
Also, if organs were only availiable to donors, people whose religion said 'no donating' might not be able to get organs. Of course, a religion which allowed people to recieve organs but not give them would be a bit hypocritical.
Just my $0.02,
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
I think it's Hawaii that rewards organ donors with preferred placement on the organ priority list.
Like opting out of spam, except irreversable ?
Since the majority of people don't want to be organ donors, there is no grounds for presumming they do unless they say otherwise.
Instead of using fraud, just be honest about your grasping, controlling, social engineering for a better utopia, and just seize organs from cadavers by eminent domain.
How about a small, legal form that says "I don't care what my family says; when I'm dead, take what you want. My estate waives all claim and title to the flesh." Include a card the size of a license that says so, as well as a contact number to confirm.
Or, a law that says you sign you drivers license if you DON'T want to donate, and assume anyone that doesn't sign wants to.
If your talking about execution, there are problems with organ donations from death row inmates. In most states lethal injection is the preferred method, the chemicals used in this process however are so powerful that they render all the organs useless, same with gas chambers. Old sparky also destroys organs pretty effectivly. I do remember hearing about one guy who chose the firing squad so his organs (asiddes from the heart and probably a lung then) could be harvested.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
"...or a scary flashback to how early 'subscription-only' fire departments worked?"
Or make less of an effort to save you because your organs are so badly needed. It wouldn't be the first time.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I don't know where you live, but here in Soviet Russ Err..Florida, you don't have to ask, they ask you. When I got my license, I was asked if I wanted to be a organ donor, and I responded no. If I wasn't listening, I could have said the wrong thing, because they do put the question with all the other dumb questions.
You have to realize also, some people just think the idea that someone else has their organ is pretty scary, I'm kind of undecided on that, but I'm not a donor for other reasons
"And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
1 John 4:14
I have a friend who's wife is a nurse in an emergency room. She talked me out of being an organ donor on my driver's license for this very reason.
It's not a case of doctors being 'evil', simply that if there's incentive for you to be dead, they might be pushed to make that decision about you while you still have a chance of 'coming back'.
She said you can put that kind of thing in your will. I haven't done that, but I guess I'm more worried about keeping me alive than someone else.
/.: why the hell am I here?
Part of the problem is also that people don't usually know that there are some organs and tissues which you can safely donate while still living. Bone marrow, for one thing, is a very safe tissue to give up--of course, it's so safe to give up a small amount of it that there's usually no trouble finding a familial match when the time comes. But living kidney donation is a viable option, and kidneys are needed by non-familial recipients all the time. Kidneys from living donors also "take" much better statistically than cadaveric kidneys.
:-) But the fact that I drink a vast quantity of fluid each and every day has me scared that my remaining kidney wouldn't like it very much...
Of course, living kidney donation does involve some relatively small risks and slightly increased possibility that you'd need a kidney transplant of your own eventually, but the statistical increses are minimal. Personally, I've considered becoming a living kidney donor--gotta be great for the karma.
Chasing Amy
(We all chase Amy...)
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
People should be able to sell rights to their post-mortem organs, and their non-vital organs like kidnies. Honestly I don't see what the big deal is.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If it makes you feel any better, that's not official policy.
To be honest, I think very, very few octors would entertain the idea of letting you die so your organs could be transplanted. Even if a tiny percentage have thought this without being repulsed by the clear violation of medical ethics, the chances of a doctor acting on those thoughts is even more miniscule. I suspect the chances of your wife being unavailiable are markedly higher than the chances of you being killed for your organs. If I were you, I'd just carry an organ donor card - let them get 'em while they're fresh.
Just my $0.02,
Michael
"Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
Second, helmets are not as effective as you might think. They reduce the risk of death by about 30% by the govt's own most generous estimates. That means when somebody dies helmetless, they probably would have died with a helmet anyways. Of course 30% is still worth having, and I hope you always wear one when driving your car for maximum safety.
Finally, the argument about making people wear people wear helmets to save society money is a nonstarter. If you really want to save society money, you should look at outlawing alcohol (decreased productivity, higher crime, accidents) and premarital sex (statistically higher crime rate and lower earnings from 1-parent kids) and obesity (obvious). Each of these has a far, far greater impact than motorcycle helmets. Also everybody should be forced to attend college, since they're otherwise robbing society of about $2 Mil in potential productive capacity over a lifetime. Of course since we have privately funded health care in the US the whole argument is irrelevant to those of us who live here anyways.
The fact is, if they were invented today, motorcycles would never be legal. Ditto for guns, alcohol, and who knows what else. Cars probably.
In case you're wondering, yes, I am a motorcyclist, and yes, I (almost) always wear a helmet because, as I said, a 30% reduced risk of death is worth having. But it's a personal choice in the state where I live, as it should be.
1) Logistics. Currently organ networks will allow you to designate a person to whom you wish to donate, not a block of people. If your designee does not need the organ, it goes to the network. It is far easier to assess the organ need of one person than a whole group.
Although it is possible to sort through a list of people, it takes time. When people die, organs do not have a lot of time before they cannot be transplanted. With the current system, the most critically ill are at the top of the list. If the potential recipient doesn't meet the criteria (blood type, organ size, etc), it moves to the next person. If there are multiple lists, which one list should take priority? What if people are on multiple lists? The problem gets more complex. With one list, it is far easier to manage.
2) Discrimination. The current organ networks do not assess anything but need and medical criteria. They do not care about a recipient's race or socio-economic status. If LifeSharer's can designate which organs go to which people, what is to prevent a group like the KKK or Rich Republicans from starting a list. Although it is unlikely that such a group will every get a list, any use of such group like LifeSharers faces many legal problems. If someone less critically ill receives an organ from LifeSharer' than someone who is more critically ill and not on LifeSharer's, doesn't the hospital, transplant teams, and organ network face a wrong death and discrimination lawsuit should the more critically ill person die. There would be a gaggle of lawyers lined up to take the case.
3) A gift should have few if any conditions. Besides being able to designate a "potential" donee, donors understand that they are freely giving their organs to anyone. The more stipulations, the more that "gift" becomes a contract. Contracts can then become mired in legal problems.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Everybody has something that somebody else can use, so anybody can join LifeSharers, no matter how sick you are. Most people who can't donate organs can donate corneas, tissue, etc. Join LifeSharers at http://www.lifesharers.com/enroll.htm. It's free. It could save your life.
Meanwhile, any technology that could plausibly rebuild your brain after the damage from disease or trauma, the ischemic damage, and the enormous damage from cryopreservation itself, is pretty clearly not going to have a lot of trouble building you a new body. Probably a new body that you won't be able to distinguish from the original one.
Not to say that plenty of people won't go for whole-body anyway, but I can't say I believe they'll be doing it on the basis of being more "informed". They'll be doing it on the basis of the same religious and sentimental factors that make anybody else not donate organs.
My question is... what about kids? At what age do we decide that they can make their own decisions about transplants? Can their parents decide for them? There was a young (I think 5-year-old) boy around here who just had a heart transplant recently. Would it have been ethical to deny him that heart because he's not of age to decide to donate?
As good as an organ-sharing system may sound, I think that the only way organ donations will increase is if someone works out an incentive plan. Given how few people think that something bad might happen to them, how likely is this group to make much of a difference?
Besides, personally, I have a hard time with giving organs preferentially to altruistic people. They should go to the ones who need them the most, no matter how appealing it might be to reserve them for other nice folks.
As for religious objections to organ donation... I don't know of any religions that believe you should refuse to donate organs but that will happily allow acceptance of them, so these people are hardly abusing the system - no matter how "dumbass" you think their beliefs are.
~ Leilah
I have been a potential organ donor since I turned 18 and could legally become one. Not that science has progressed far enough to really make organ transplants a magical cure for failing organs since you still have to take immune suppressors for the rest of your life and are often left with an ugly scar. I think those immune suppressors are pretty nasty...
Having said that, if I needed an organ I think I'd take the scar and the pills rather than die. I have friends that are CNAs and they tell lots of horror stories, one of which is what happens to you if you choose to discontinue dialasis. You basically dissolve on the bed in a matter of weeks until death mercifully takes you.
The ability to transplant organs also brings up ethical problems for donors and recipients. If you have type 2 diabetes and failing kidneys do you accept your overweight kid's left kidney knowing they will probably come down wih diabetes later in life and need all the kidney they can get? Do you buy them a life insurance policy so that young family of theirs will have some means of support when no kidney is available for them?
I'd sign up for this program except for the following problems:
Will being on this list keep you off the 'real list'? While it isn't fair for people to get organs who wouldn't donate them, the proprietors organize the 'real' list based on need. They might consider that you don't 'need' the transplant as much as someone that is not on this organ donor community list because you would still have a chance for an organ if they move your name down the list while someone else would have no other recourse. A child however who is not able to join this list legally and who can't be expected to think about such things ( a kidnerdgartener for instance ) is a different story.
The other problem is the reason health insurers don't pay for pre existing conditions. If someone needs a liver, then maybe they'll put themselves on themselves off the list. People in need with no intention of contributing would be able to leach.
There are people who believe they need all their body parts to be resurected properly on the afterlife. IMO, this is stupid since if God can bring a decayed skeleton back to life, he ought to be able to miracle some lost flesh or organs out of something God's s'posed to be omnipotent after all. Maybe he could use some sand or one of Marilyn Manson's missing ribs. (Maybe I'd donate a rib if it meant I could suck my own dick in the afterlife - ahh the pleasures of being AnonymousCoward! )
These people are entitled to their belifs but those ( selfish in this case ) beliefs come with consequences. They shouldn't be subsidised by the organs of the rest of us.
That is like saying if you don't vote you waive your bill of rights. Many recipients of organ donation are children. Children in America are not responsible for entering contracts such as the organ donation program and it would be ludicrous to assume they would. The same goes for the sick and poor which would be likely candidates for donation that may not sign up as donors for obvious reasons.
We aren't a socialist state yet but at least we're human.
I personally believe the organ donation program is a good thing for extreme cases such as birth defects and rare genetic diseases. But in general organ transplants breed irresponsibility in a nation of increasingly poorer health. Smoke 2 packs of cigarettes a day and if you pay your insurance you get a double lung transplant by the time you're 40. It might cost $2 million that someone else has to pay but you get to breathe again for a few thousand in insurance premiums. Or maybe eat butter and french fries and then get a heart transplant with your quadruple bypass? Drink a case of beer every day with your bottle of whiskey and you get a liver transplant? Eat and live right and stop relying on insurance and "miracle" medicine to save your ass from irresponsible living at the last minute.
I have donated an organ already, because of that, I get preference over someone who has not.
There are a variety of different factors that go into determining who is eligible to receive an organ. Some are, but not limited to, location, blood type, general health, how quickly can you be ready to recieve the organ when it is availble, etc.
My aunt got lucky one 4th of July several years ago. Some had dies in car accident, me he rest in peace, and was a perfect match for my aunt. My mom was signed up as her back-up contact. Well, the hospital called my home and I happened to anwer. My aunt had an hour to call the hospital and verify that she would be able to make it there within four hours. Let me tell you, we were calling everybody we could think to call. Finally someone thought to call as many radio stations that we could get a hold of in the area. We had to call my aunt's nurse back and the nurse had to call the radio stations. My aunt called the hospital with less than 15 minutes before the organ went to some else.
And as several people have already pointed out,
if you need an organ, there would be no way you could ever donate because of all the anti-rejection drugs you have to take.
Who cares about homosexuals / IV drug users in this case anyway? They should neither donate organs nor receive them. Obvious-fucking-ly. Jeebus, does everything have to revolve around the exception? The OP has a good idea, and this contrived monkey-wrench is just plain silly.
I guess this will be modded down because, well, it's not politically correct or sensitive. But it would take considerably more effort (and be much more potentially enlightening to those like me who sincerely don't know why we should care) to argue why this idea should be in any way hampered by the exceedingly minor exception of HIV-infected donors/recipients. Please, help me understand.
everything in moderation