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?"
Part of the problem is caused by dead people whose families don't allow the deceased's organs to be harvested, even if that person had given full legal consent for doctors to do so when they died. That does not make sense. If families have to follow the last will and testament of dead people, why is this an exception? Wouldn't these familie would be aware of this and wouldn't want to disrespect the wishes of their dead?
Bash script for FP whores
Simply make donor status mandatory for a motorcycle license and eliminate the helmet laws.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
The way to encourage organ donation is to make the the default option on your driver's license instead of something you have to request. In addition, doctors shouldn't have to get permission from the family if the deceased already has an organ donor card.
If there's a market for organs, and criminals sentenced to the death penalty are required to donate them, you now have an industry that profits from having more capital punishment. They might then lobby the government to expand the death penalty for the same reason a defense contractor might lobby for military expansion or a private prison industry might oppose legalizing marijuana. Scary thought.
That said, death row inmates should be allowed to donate organs if they choose to. I just don't want it to be in some corporation's financial interest to expand the death penalty.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
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.
The only problem with this is people who can't register as donors, like people with communicable diseases, etc. Otherwise, it's an awesome idea.
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.