Slashdot Mirror
Todd Need[ed] a Liver
Mr. Christmas Lights writes "According to this CNN article, Todd Krampitz's liver transplant operation was a success. What is significant about this is how he used a multi-media campaign to get a donor - this included billboards stating 'I need a Liver. Please help Save my Life' that all pointed to his web site at ToddNeedsALiver.com where you can read more. Certainly a novel use of the World Wide Web."
I know, keep it! Just change the thing from human liver to cow/pig liver.. And also include onions!
Ah, you found me!
I don't understand. I thought organ transplants could not be done privately and could only be done through organ transplant lists where you were ranked on necessity and the immediate terminality of your situation?
So, how exactly would a media campaign expedite such a transplant?! It's not like he could pay someone for it and I'm pretty sure they require anonymity. As happened in this case, I don't believe they allow a specific person to donate a specific organ to a specific recipient without going through the hospital process as there might be someone else chosen as more needy or more urgent.
And at any rate, this just further shows the disparity between those who have money and those who do not. Those who have it can do a media blitz to get a liber or find their abducted child and so on while those without it are fucked.
By the way - his girlfriend is hot. Too bad they seem like a couple of religious nuts.
does this mean that the person who is able to finance a media blitz will be first to receive a liver or other major organ?
haven't there been allot of similar websites before?
I know of several that ask for a place to stay for the night (for people who travel around the world for example)
and I think also several asking for donations against deseases...
so not realy a new thing to use a website to get your request out to the world...
All indicators show that the human race is selectively breeding itself for stupidity.
Get well soon!
Sincerely,
The Internet
Since when has this country used intellectual elite as a pejorative term?
I find it utterly unbelievable that relatives of organ donors can designate a recipient. Only medical criteria should matter. Otherwise, people with the money/wit to start a public relations campaign will be more likely to get an organ. And all that without the approval of the donor! I know that I would have hated to find my liver in this guy.
I heard that it had something to do with someone getting drugged, passing out, and waking up in an icy bathtub. Really. My friend sent me an email about it.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
The real question to ask here is whether or not such ad campaigns equate to 'buying' a liver through spending money on the advertisements? Could this be the next boon to advertisers?
Things like this help to defeat the image of the web as the online wild west which makes it harder to lobby for fundamental changes to be forced on the architecture. Kinda hard to paint it as a force for "darkening our childrens' hearts" as Bush insinuated it often was in the 2000 election when it is being used effectively to save lives.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Capitalism at its finest, or semi-evil abuse of having money?
This seems to shout that those who are able to afford it, or able to come up with the best resources first, get the goods (a liver, in this case). So life and death quickly become a matter of being the cleverest.
On that note, though, isn't that what natural selection, survivial of the fittest, is about? Those who are able to best take advantage of the situation to make out the best in the end.
Still not sure I agree with it, however...
Isn't everyone supposed to have an equal chance at getting an organ? Remember Mickey Mantle who pickeled his liver with many decades of hard alcohol? He got a liver ahead of many people then promptly died a few months later. I guess this just proves yet again that some people are more equal that others (namely those with money).
On one hand, I am glad this man got his liver and was able to live. On the other hand, why did he have to choose clear channel billboards to advertise on? (see pic in CNN article).
While not as crucial as this one, I can think of two similarly novel uses of the Web to get what one wants.
Karyn Bosnak was $20,000 in the hole and set up SaveKaryn.com. Within a few months she had paid off all her debts from the contributions of strangers. Now she's an author.
Ramon Stoppelenburg wanted to travel around the world but had no money, so he started LetMeStayForADay.com, and managed to hitchhike around the world for a couple of years without spending a dime.
I also seem to recall a far older site called 'Send Me A Dollar', but I don't have the URL to hand now. Does anyone know of any other people who've used the Web for interesting personal gain?
So when are the first "I need a date" billboards from slashdot geeks going to appear? You can point it to your TomsADnDandStarwars.com fan page. The similarities are obvious. He only needed one liver, most geeks will settle for one girl. He needed a liver to keep on living, most geeks need one for bragging purposes at the next trekkie convention. Very similar.
"I want more life, f*cker"
Bad taste I know, but I couldn't help thinking of the scene in Blade Runner, where Roy kills Tyrell.
First, I'm glad that his life now has a higher probability of being saved. No transplant operation is a guarenteed success. He has a family who cares, he's young, and he deserves a chance.
However, there is a great shortage of organ donors - many of whom are people who do not have access to the financial resources necessary to conduct such an impressive media campaign. Do these people have less of a right to survive? Unfortunately, the success of Todd's campaign will likely encourage future copycat media blitz's.
Are we going to allow wealth to decide who live's or dies? Simple charisma, money, and good looks seem to be the factor which saved (hopefully) this fellows life. What do you say to the single teacher who needs a transplant? Sorry, you just have to wait your chance?
If you want to make a difference for many people, sign your organ donor card, donate to the red cross, encourage stem cell research. And please, try to think of a better way to allocate organs than giving an organ to those who have the most money. I'm sorry that I'm harsh with this, but now someone else has been pushed farther down the line in the transplant list, and that person may not survive.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
to create my own website. I'm hoping donations will start flowing in any day now.....
... I'm happy he's alright, and that the transplant was a success. However, what worries me is the number of people repeatedly passed-over for transplants based on questionable justification.
Speaking from experience, the donation and subsequent dole-out process is supposed to be on a first-come-first-serve priority, based on compatibility and/or severity. Any attempts to get around this process are not only unfair for those that wait (painstakingly) in line, but also for the unfortunate soul that may have been bumped back a position in favour of the media-savvy Todd.
Unfortunately we may never know their name, they did not invest in billboards or an online advertising campaign.
I only hope that the next available donation arrived in time.
Every year there are about 45'0000 deaths from Car accidents alone.
Are you a registered Organ Donor?
If more people would be registered, that waiting list would shorten dramatically in a year or two, and this guy would not have had to do this to stay alive.
Or do you have other plans for your organs after you are dead?
get 7 free Japanese lessons.
That's insane. In my opinion, one of the most clever things I've seen done. Hey, if you have extra cash laying around go right ahead, you have to think about it, if you get on a waiting list for a donor, you're going to be waiting a while. Face it, the world is run by money, and the people that can't afford to live in it die off. I know it's a pesimistic way to see it, but it's a reality, I don't like it, but that's the way it is. Anyways, back to the point, if you have the money, use every resource to keep yourself alive, isn't that the point of it all?
-templest
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
the next e-marketing revolution: Transplant spam...
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
Mikeneedsamilliondollars.com
Follow the adventures of the new wandering jews
Mental note: domains to register...
c om ... mmm no, George Bush has that.
Ineedakidney.com
Ineedaheart.com
Ineedabrain.
(PD: Get well Todd, just joking).
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" - Albert Einstein.
GIRLFRIEND
Think that will work on a billboard? Nah, who am I kidding...
Gotta be worth a try.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Hardly a novel use for the web! Bob-needs-an-X.com is soooo 2002! People have done this to death its just not interesting anymore! this year its all about not having a website, like checkout my lack of a website "oh you are soooo individual!".
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As someone who is seperated by only one degree from Todd and his family (one of our best friends is also good friends with his wife) we've been following this for some time now. You can damm well bet that if it were my family or close friend, I wouldn't not hesitate to do the same thing they did. Only a fool would fail to capitalize on whatever assets they have in order to stay alive.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
In a perfect world, there would be new organs for all who needed them. In the imperfect world that we have to live in, there are waiting lists. Todd jumped the queue, the donor's liver would otherwise have gone to the number one on the list. One life saved at the expense, possibly, of another. I wish Todd and his family all the best, but I have nagging doubts about the ethicality of this thing. The precedent it sets is potentially nasty. It reminds one of drowning men climbing on each other's shoulders to get to the surface, drowning those beneath them.
----- One learns to itch where one can scratch.
I wonder if I could pull of something like this.... or possibly we could just go somewhere with the whole stem cell thing and make me a liver that wouldn't be rejected by my immune system.
It's easy to make judgments about how people fight death if you haven't been there. The wealthy has always had better heath options, even when working the system. Do the rich rely on Nation Health? If you're a millionaire you aren't going to be worried if your insurance policy denies coverage for an expensive procedure. You write a bloody check and get it anyway. All transplant patience are evaluated almost daily for eligibility. You can be too well, or too sick to qualify for any given organ. That's not even including the complications of tissue match and geography.
For all you know, that person who was in front was some alcoholic who had drunk themselves two steps into scerosis of the liver or some celebrity figure or other type of bigwig.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
But what if people do not agree with the way this list is handled? There can be very valid reasons, to disagree. Think about priorities. Everything else equal...
Organ donations are a complex matter. Whatever the details, I believe that every patient has the right to come up with creative ideas to fight for his/her survival, and also that each donor has the right to decide what should be done with his/her organs; who else could have a higher right?
www.BobNeedsADualG5PowerMac.org
So how would that Janis Joplin song go in the internet age?
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Please support your statement. How is he a "prick"?
I fail to see the logic in your argument. If you were a millionaire, and you needed a heart transplant ASAP, wouldn't you use all the money, or at least most of it, at your disposal in order to ensure your life was saved?
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
Considering all the other things the web is used for I would call this more than novel. This is, imho, exactly what the WWW SHOULD be used for. Not a bunch of "Dear Diary, it's raining out and I am sad." blogs. A real, substantive use of an advanced communication medium to complete a worthy goal. It may be semantics, but I think its anything but a novel use....
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
What if your son was the previous #1 on the list, bumped by this guy?
I know what you're saying, but there is another side to the story.
Todd *did* jump the queue (as far as I can tell) -- but at the same time, the publicity he gave to organ donation resulted in people signing up as organ donors. By using his own story (and a handsome, innocent face) to publicise a much larger problem, he has saved a lot more lives than just his own.
Even posting this story to slashdot has probably reminded some of us to make sure we're properly registered as organ donors. Overall, it's a good thing (though yeah, I'm also a little jumpy about letting anyone jump the queue).
Despite a liver transplant the chances of long term survival (>5 years) is low for a patient with such a large tumor (~30%). Obviously, much better than not having had the transplant at all. Our prayers should go out to Todd and his family. Interestingly, some transplant centers do "split liver" transplants from a parent to a child, for example, with good success. A normal liver has tremendous proliferative potential and the donor's "half" liver returns to normal size in a few months. I don't think this works, however, when the recipient is an adult.
Why would you do something randomly if there is some other discriminator? Any other discriminator. Tooting one's own horn is a time honored way of getting ahead.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I've always thought a solution to the lack of organ donors was relatively simple. Currently, by default no-one is an organ donor. It's something you have to choose to be, normally when you renew your driver's license.
The solution I would propose is to change the default to be that everyone is an organ donor. There would be a chance to opt-out of being an organ donor, similar to being given the choice when renewing one's driver's license. I know there are people who would object to being an organ donor (due to personal or religious beliefs), and that is why there is the "opt-out" part described above.
Please comment and discuss!
doing this would save more lives as well. markets allocate resources more efficiently than any centralized organization. more lives would be saved.
of course more of them would have money, and we know that anyone with money is obviously evil.
One possible means of reducing the donor organ shortages in the US and UK could be the adoption of something like the "presumed consent" laws that operate in Europe. In Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Norway, and Spain, consent for removal of organs for donation is presumed unless you express your objection in advance, whereas in the US the opposite is true.
Remember this guy?
I have the feeling he's still quite single.
Then there was "I bought too many shoes, give me $20,000" girl.. Karyn?
Very cool site to go along with Todd's liver.
...where you also can't buy a baby
but you can buy the sperm, you can buy the egg,
and you can rent the uterus.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
I see a lot of complaints about "jumping the list".
Yes the guy "jumped the list'; the fact is that "more money" almost always equals "more life"; you don't have to look to liver transplants to find extreme examples of this.
The thing that amazes me is how much people are offended by him "jumping the list', when in fact liver transplants are one area where the list isn't really as meaningful as it is for other organs, such as corneas, hearts, pancreas, lungs, and so on.
In actually, the liver, like the kidney, is one where no one ned die for lack of a cadaver donor.
The liver is an organ that can be replaced via a live donor transplant. In a live donor transplant, the right lobe of the donor's liver is transplanted, and the remaining liver in the donor grows back to full size in about 14 days. Although the large blood vessel and bile duct structures are not replaced, there is enough small structure that is replaced that, while not suitable for repeat donation, the regrown right lobe is as efficient for the donor as the original was.
I'm actually really surprised that, if he were that desperate, that a member of his family (or his wife, if they were from compatable blood groups), didn't simply volunteer as a live donor.
-- Terry
Figures that no less than a day after he gets his liver that the following appears on his web site:
Todd Needs Fava Beans...And A Nice Chianti!
Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
A point that does not seem to have been made and should be.
/. (HEY, TYRO!) can back me up on this.
Liver transplants don't have to come from a cadaver (or soon-to-be a cadaver). It is possible to take a section of a healthy person's liver and transplant it. The transplant will regenerate into a full liver, and the donor's liver will also regenerate (barring infection/drug abuse/drinking/rejection).
So unlike a heart transplant, you can create media attention, locate a potential transplant donor, and get them to donate to you while they are still alive - in that way a liver is like a bone marrow transplant.
So by creating a lot of media attention he got people to consider being tested and donating that would not have done so otherwise - he did not "cut in line" ahead of somebody else. Indeed, it is possible that, due to his actions, somebody else who needed a liver might have found a match.
Various docs who frequent
www.eFax.com are spammers
That's an amusing phrase.... "Liver transplants? On the INTERNET! (monocle falls out of eye) What a perfectly novel idea!"
It is cutting edge, but it is possible to do living unrelated liver transplants. The transplant clinic here in Richmond, Virginia ( Hume Lee Transplant Center ) has done about 60 in the past three years according to their web site. Several have been published in the local paper.
.
In general, transplants from living volunteers have better results because the organ is away from a real blood supply for the shortest amount of time.
I'm sure the transplant center Todd delt with had a medical reason to do what they did ( or possibly that is the only transplant his insurance would cover )
7 years ago I received a kidney from my mom so I could live. Three months later my brother died suddenly and his tissued were used in transplants to others, so I am in a unique position to see both sides.
I think that those who have complained that Todd "jumping the list" fail to see the point: There needs to be more organs available for transplant, better preventative health care to reduce the chance diseases don't destoy one's organs, and more research towards ways of improving transplantation, and alternatives to transplant ( for example: artificial hearts )
Some places already have organ exchanges set up for kidney transplants so that if you have a member of the family that needs a kidney, and yours won't work, you can arrange to give yours to someone else and your relative gets bumped up the list. For example see
There is also Living Donors Online which seeks to coordinate living donors for kidneys, livers and bone marrow. There are many cases of people who donate even if they don't know someone who needs an organ, because they feel it's the right thing to do.
Hopefully, in the future, we'll be able to just buy the organs directly from the family of the deceased. It would be a lot cheaper and the incentive would ease the shortage of organs and save many lives.
Then we won't have those damned poor people getting organs that could have saved wealthy people. We can have gruesome bidding wars among people clinging to life, where being outbid can be a death sentence. Families with modest means, desperate to save the life of a loved one with liver cancer, can sell their homes, cars, liquidate their life's saving, their retirement accounts, the kids' college tuition accounts, and maybe even turn to crime in an effort to come up with enough money to outbid some CEO or celebrity who drank his liver into failure. "Mommy has to have sex with strangers to buy daddy a new liver."
Yeah, that's a great idea: Give people a huge financial incentive to pull out of the organ donor pool so that their families can sell the organs instead.
I work in the medical industry and know it to be fully driven by the same financial considerations as most other industries.
I am an organ doner, happily. I am an organ doner because I hope that if I die, my organs can be used to the most needy recipient. If they go to a person who has the cash to bend the rules, then I think they better just pay me or my family.
but I doubt many people have the resources to mount a media campaign to get a new liver. Roll on genetic engineering, and hopefully waiting for a liver will become a thing of the past for everyone affected.
Buying corpses is still a pretty tightly-controlled trade.
There are some issues with selling bodies and body parts. The problem is that everybody has a body, that they can be extremely profitable, and that the taking of someone else's body (while lucrative) causes them quite a bit of damage.
This was actually in the news recently -- killing humans for body parts (not for transplants, but for "medicines" and the like) happens in parts of Africa, and there was a rather gruesome series of serial killings.
This is also a concern with abuse of "mercy killings" -- what if you *need* another hospital bed, and one person is unlikely to wake up from a coma? Sure, an individual mercy killing won't cause a problem, but if people lose their trust of hospitals -- well, that's a different story.
There is significant benefit to adjusting our system to operate in such a way that people have to worry only minimally about the loss of their life -- otherwise, you get inefficiences like people having to always run around with bombs that go off when they die and things like that -- and the associated fatalities.
I think that ownership of organs should be part of a person's estate. Otherwise, we get into nasty property rights issues about who actually owns the organs. If the organs are willed to the family to sell -- so be it.
May we never see th
Obviously, their religion was just a PR trick. Had they been true believing Christians, they could have saved themselves a lot of work and money: as Jesus said so eloquently in Mt 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive."
Actually there's a booming organ black market where poor people from all over the world donate organs for money to those who can afford it. The Christian Science Monitor has a really interesting article dealing with this hot topic. A fascinating, yet disturbing read.
from the to-stupid-for-words dept.
. . is for the rich in this country. I don't begrudge this guy his liver, I'm happy for him. But at the same time, I can't help but think about all those poor schmucks who don't have his money to toss at the problem.
Why do people embrace capitalism as a way of life, but shun it when it comes to saving a life? What do you think would happen if people could choose to donate their organ, or auction them, or let them rot?
People understand that lust benefits society in a capitalistic society. (I want more money, so I will find an innovative way to get people to give me their money. People give their money because it is something they want) Why do people freak when this concept is applied to organs?
I know there is a shortage of organs now, but if people knew that their loved ones could benefit financially by auctioning their organs, don't you think there would be more organs on the market? Considering peoples greed, you would probably find spouses checking to make sure that the other had auction organs marked on their drivers license.
The only regulation you would need is that you cannot set a minimum amount on the auction. Without this you would have people saying, "Don't sell organ unless my family gets $50,000". If you're going to auction your organs, the market should set the price. It costs money to harvest an organ, and that money should not be wasted letting the organ rot because those in need are not bidding high enough.
The number of organs transplanted would increase greatly and many more lives would be saved. But I guess this is a bad thing because some families in morning are receiving financial compensation, and others might have to be slightly successful to afford such benefits. Even if organs could be auctioned, many will still be donated, so those less fortunate financially would still be on a list.
"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." -- Isa of Aramea AKA Jesus Christ, as quoted in Mattew 22:37-40 (when asked for the greatest commandment)
From this central doctrine, it follows:
"Transplants are a great step forward in science's service of man, and not a few people today owe their lives to an organ transplant. Increasingly, the technique of transplants has proven to be a valid means of attaining the primary goal of all medicine - the service of human life (...) There is a need to instill in people's hearts, especially in the hearts of the young, a genuine and deep appreciation of the need for brotherly love, a love that can find expression in the decision to become an organ donor."
-- Dr Dr Karol Wojtyla AKA Pope John Paul II, in a speech held at the International Congress on Transplants in Rome
In conclusion, Christians are allowed to donate organs to rescue other humans in need and for research.
PS: It would be nice if such an interesting and important discussion could be carried out without the used of bad language and discrimination.
Which fucking genius modded this up? Actually my example is quite plausible. It's not hard to imagine; the donor might be 12 for example. There are many cases of people receiving organs from donors much younger than themselves.
you will probably find that alcoholism gets more prevalent at lower income stratas. So, actually now it works like this: alcoholic bum that beats his wife every night after spending a day at the pub wasting her money gets saved because he was first on the list and the CEO of the very successful company Y whose product made easier the lifes of millions of peoples dies. But its okay, as all lefties know, being poor is a merit and being rich is filthy, so now matter, it's always good when poor people get by at the rich's expense.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
If there are X livers and Y people who need them, then Y - X people will die liverless. Who has the right to say that folks who are psuedo randomly selected to be at the top of a list are more deserving of cadaver parts than rich people who can plop down cash money?
If the livers out there are paid for, then the money will be able to support efforts to get more livers, and increase supply. Organ donors can be paid by organ harvester companies, a fixed up front ammount for an arrangement that in the event of a death that enables organs to be harvested, that company will get ownership and be able to sell them to those that can pay.
With the added money, supply is increased from X to X + M. Now only Y - X - M people die liverless.
Because organs are not allowed on the market, M more people die than would otherwise die.
However the poor would be completely excluded from organ transplants if cadaver parts traded as commodoties. So what? Are the lives of the few poor folks that would get livers under the moneyless system more important than the lives of the greater number of richer folks that recieve livers when they are bought and sold?
Excluding organs from the free market doens't make everyone equal. It says that the lives of those with money are worth LESS than the lives of those without. It is actually more unfair than letting the poor be excluded from organ transplants because they can not afford organs. It lets more people die than would otherwise. And it doesn't let poor people reap the monetary benefits of selling their organs.
If a organ harvester company would assume the obligation to pay for my burial expenses on the chance that they might get to harvest my organs, then I would consider it a 'free' life insurance policy and subscribe.
Having said that, it would be good to note that current organ donor lists factor in other things like degree of compatibility, and prognosis with transplant, as well as urgency of need when deciding who gets an organ. But some of this would still be factored in under an organ dutch auction system. A still relatively healthy rich person might decline to purchase a marginally compatible liver in the hopes that they would be able to wait till a better match was found, leaving that liver available for a poorer person for whom the liver matched perfectly. Also, people without much chance for survival even with a transplant might mostly choose to forego the operation and expense to their families. There would be a few so rich they might 'waste' a few organs, but that number would be very small since the number of 'filthy rich' people is neccessarily small relative to the whole population.
Eat at Joe's.
I thought they were pretty disturing when I read them a few years back.
you will probably find that alcoholism gets more prevalent at lower income stratas.
That's why the Betty Ford Clinic is just full of poor people, right? Heck, it was even named after some poor woman who didn't even have a job. And I don't suppose you ever considered that many poor people are alcoholics because their lives are so stressful and depressing did it? Oh, but I forgot: You're a right winger, so you believe that all people who are poor choose to be poor or are simply lazy.
So, actually now it works like this: alcoholic bum that beats his wife every night after spending a day at the pub wasting her money gets saved because he was first on the list and the CEO of the very successful company Y whose product made easier the lifes of millions of peoples dies.
Think about the the millions of lives touched by Enron's Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, Tyco's L. Dennis Kozlowski, Imclone's Samual Waksal, and Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers. Most CEOs are money-grubbing scum. They will take an invention, make tens of millions of dollars off of it, and lay off the employee who invented it six months later. They will shut down a U.S. facility, lay off thousands of workers who made the company a success, and then hire people in India or China to replace them. CEOs will mismanage a company, lay off workers who have done nothing wrong, and then take home a paycheck large enough to pay for 100 of the laid off workers.
But its okay, as all lefties know, being poor is a merit and being rich is filthy, so now matter, it's always good when poor people get by at the rich's expense.
Most rich people got that way by abusing poor people. The wealthy executives pay their workers starvation wages, view the workers as disposable, and couldn't care less whether the guy that they just let go will lose his house in six months.
Let's put this in simple terms: If O.J. Simpson and an autoworker each need a heart transplant, why the hell should O.J. Simpson's money mean that he lives and the autoworker dies? Tell me that! Tell me why someone who has more money automatically, in all cases, deserves to live more than a poor person?
And I don't suppose you ever considered that many poor people are alcoholics because their lives are so stressful and depressing did it?
Or it might be the other way around. Who knows? You brought up alcoholism to paint CEOs in a bad light, implying that they brought their liver failure on themselves. I just pointed out that the statistics don't agree with you. And in any case, don't tell me about americans working poor, I stayed with them, for half a year near seattle. The host 'mom' was a waitress at deny's and 'dad' a cab driver and they got by fine with their 3 kids in that big old house of theirs, at least by european standards.
Think about the the millions of lives touched by Enron's Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, Tyco's L. Dennis Kozlowski, Imclone's Samual Waksal, and Worldcom's Bernard Ebbers. Most CEOs are money-grubbing scum. They will take an invention, make tens of millions of dollars off of it, and lay off the employee who invented it six months later. They will shut down a U.S. facility, lay off thousands of workers who made the company a success, and then hire people in India or China to replace them. CEOs will mismanage a company, lay off workers who have done nothing wrong, and then take home a paycheck large enough to pay for 100 of the laid off workers.
What did Kenneth Lay ever do? Please tell me, because I want to know how it is not morally impeccable to buy the companies stock at a time when it was clear that enron headed for the gutter. Maybe he made bad business decisions that contributed to enrons downfall. But with the whole economy almost collapsing at that time, I am not sure wether there was a right decision to be made at all.
Sam Waksal. Oh, I know, he dared to sell 2% of his ImClone stock, after the FDA had refused a license application for the promising CANCER drug Erbitux. Now, tell me, who did the damadge? Why did the FDA refuse a CANCER drug in the first place? There can't be no reason for that. Let me tell you, my mom has cancer and when the time comes and they tell her that they didn't get her clean of rampant cells the first time around, she would try everything that spares her the misery of going through an chemo therapy again. She wouldn't care if taking Erbitux would grow her a second head, as long as there is the least chance it would save her life. And even if the refusal was necessary, how could Sam Waskal know this before the information got 'public' if no one at the FDA had told him. I am pretty sure I can see where the true criminals sit. It's not in the private sector. Oh, by the way, the FDA reveresed its decision on the drug and the guy that organized the money and provided the infrastructur to research a pill that could mean the difference between life and death now is a convicted felon. Think about that for justice.
Companies are foremost committed to their customers, as it should be. If the market pressures to cut costs, changing the salary of CEOs from whatever it is to 0 will not have any effect beyond fractions of a percent lowering and not having CEOs anymore. Those are the same market pressures, by the way, that make a standard of living available to the common men that has been undreamed of in previous centuries, even by kings and emperors. From an economic standpoint it doesn't matter much in the great scheme of things and it even has some side effects that should warm your liberal bleeding heard. Labor goes where Labor is cheapest. Due to this process, labor becomes more expensive in that area as demand for labor goes up, and so it goes around. This is the markets way of spreading wealth to dirt poor countries as india and china once where. Meanwhile at home, the same products get either a) cheaper or b) better. Whichever it is, it will have positive effects on capital distribution as money is set free to be used in higher order endeavours that where unaffordable before und thusly creating higher level jobs with better wages and also requiring more qualification. This is the way it has been since the a
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
You brought up alcoholism to paint CEOs in a bad light, implying that they brought their liver failure on themselves.
No, I brought that up as *an* example of what would happen if there were pay-for-organs as had been suggested. You are the one who incorrectly assumed that I was implying that all CEOs brought liver failure on themselves. You then used that incorrect assumption as a springboard to launch into your diatribe against the poor and against liberals.
What did Kenneth Lay ever do? Please tell me, because I want to know how it is not morally impeccable to buy the companies stock at a time when it was clear that enron headed for the gutter.
Whoa! You were all ready to give the CEO credit when his company brings a new invention to market. How about giving the CEO blame when his company cheats people out of millions of dollars in an energy scam? Oh, I see, if the company does something good, then we should shower the CEO with praise and put him to the front of the line for organ transplants. But if his company does horrible things which harm millions of people, then that's not his fault.
Let me tell you, my mom has cancer and when the time comes and they tell her that they didn't get her clean of rampant cells the first time around, she would try everything that spares her the misery of going through an chemo therapy again.
You have my sincere sympathy. I lost a grandfather and my father to cancer. I wish you and your mother the best during her struggle. I also know that people are desperate to find hope in situations like that, looking to every cancer drug that's awaiting approval. Sometimes the approval doesn't come because the drug is not as effective as existing treatments and they don't want people foregoing an existing treatment that may offer more hope.
Companies are foremost committed to their customers, as it should be.
No, companies are, first and foremost, committed to their stockholders. That's why wildly profitable drug companies charge huge sums of money in the U.S. for drugs that treat AIDS, cancer, and other life-threatening diseases while selling the same drugs for a fraction of that in other countries. That's why gas prices skyrocket by 50% or more when oil prices rise by 10-20%. It's why they stay high long after oil prices have dropped back down.
The worker can afford a house. The worker is expandable. The worker can afford a house. The corps don't care. The worker can afford a house. It can't all be true at the same time, you know.
Workers at many jobs can't afford houses or even their own apartments. Ever try to rent an apartment in the New York, Los Angeles, or Washington D.C. areas on what their local Walmart employees earn? It can't be done. Yeah, the guy can make house payments now, but he may lose that house when his job is outsourced to India. And the corporation won't care if that happens.
On this point specifically: It's not like corps can just drag in 'inventors' from the street and make them invent. If he had what it takes to make this invention without this specific company, why didn't he? Why didn't he get rich? I don't know, maybe he is an idiot.
If it takes him three years to come up with the invention, then he probably needs an income during that time. He may need access to expensive lab equipment or machine tools that only a corporation would have. I'm not saying that he should get millions of dollars from the corporation, but it's shameful to see the trivial pittances that many people get after making CEOs and stockholders multi-millionaires. It's even more shameful when they are layed off shortly thereafter.
The donor organ belongs to someone. It is his or her choice. It is his or her property.
When that person ceases to live, they don't own anything. If you are going to claim that the family owns the body, what limits are there on what they can do with it? Can they sell it to be put into do
No, I brought that up as *an* example of what would happen if there were pay-for-organs as had been suggested. You are the one who incorrectly assumed that I was implying that all CEOs brought liver failure on themselves. You then used that incorrect assumption as a springboard to launch into your diatribe against the poor and against liberals.
Well, of course you know best what your intent was. Still, I just switched the example around to fit it better with the statistics.
How about giving the CEO blame when his company cheats people out of millions of dollars in an energy scam?
If they did cheat people out of millions of dollars, there surely was a civil law suite for damage where evidence was brought forth and examined after which the defendant was found guilty by an impartial jury. You want to point me to the case? Cause I can't find it. And don't even start with the federal case as all proof there has been extracted by pressuring the wife of one of Lays partners. Don't believe your government. They all lie.
I'll adress the rest of your post tommorrow, I am headed over to my brother now. Thank you for your sympathy, of course, you have mine too.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
Well, of course you know best what your intent was. Still, I just switched the example around to fit it better with the statistics.
But with today's system, someone with liver cancer should get the liver before someone who drank his liver into failure, all else being equal. In a highest-bidder auction, money, not ethics, decides who lives and who dies.
If they did cheat people out of millions of dollars, there surely was a civil law suite for damage where evidence was brought forth and examined after which the defendant was found guilty by an impartial jury. You want to point me to the case? Cause I can't find it.
Here's a link to information about the suit filed by the California Attorney General's office on June 17. In the press release, there is reference to the taped conversations of Enron traders brazenly talking about exporting power and gaming the market. In the conversations, they spew profanity-laced boasts about bringing California to its knees, inflicting financial pain on "Grandma Millie" and Enron's influence with President Bush. That sounds pretty damning to me, but I admit that the suit has not gone to trial yet. On the other hand, I'm not in the judicial branch of government, so I will exercise my right to presume them guilty based on what I know at this time.
I screwed up the link entry. Sorry about that. Here it is.
But with today's system, someone with liver cancer should get the liver before someone who drank his liver into failure, all else being equal. In a highest-bidder auction, money, not ethics, decides who lives and who dies.
I don't know what your ethics entail. Mine say that no life is less worth than an other. This is the main pillar of western morals. So, how do you suppose this fundamental rule is to be reconciled with appointing committees that actually get to decide on factors that will favor one life over an other? I am not sure I made this clear enough, so feel free to make me clarify
That sounds pretty damning to me, but I admit that the suit has not gone to trial yet. On the other hand, I'm not in the judicial branch of government, so I will exercise my right to presume them guilty based on what I know at this time
After reading the link, I couldn't help but think that the root problem were price caps in california after the so called 'deregulation' that actually was just a 'reregulation'. As every economics bachelor knows, price caps can have just one consequence: insufficient supply. Of course, enron is not the only company in the business so the other companies compliance with the price cap helped increase the shortage, thereby making it profitable enough for enron to circumvent 'the law' despite the risk of legal sanctions. Also, there are two other aspects in this particular case.
First off are morals: a price cap is akin to slavery. If government put a price cap on your wage instead of company products ( it happenend with gasoline too) and then, after seeing how supply of labor gets critically short, forces people to work at the price cap (as they do with companies), this would be more obvious.
Secondly there is governmental stupidity: Everyone in the power business in california has been able to watch the state legislature do their best to obstruct any and all meassures that would enhance energy production and delievery. It starts at laws that fully prevent the building of power plants anywhere in CA and ends with price caps, that, as has been pointed out, don't exactly encourage suppliers to join the market. Hence I fully understand the 'burn burn' comment in the article. Having the grid burning down is just the logical means to the end that the state government has been, unconsciously I hope, pursuing all along: ending power consumption in CA.
No, companies are, first and foremost, committed to their stockholders. That's why wildly profitable drug companies charge huge sums of money in the U.S. for drugs that treat AIDS, cancer, and other life-threatening diseases while selling the same drugs for a fraction of that in other countries. That's why gas prices skyrocket by 50% or more when oil prices rise by 10-20%. It's why they stay high long after oil prices have dropped back down.
You are right about the stockholders. Of course companies are formost committed to turning a profit. It was my mistake for using a premise that you don't accept, as I could have known. The premise is this: making the customer happy is most profitable in the vast majority of cases.
Drug companies charge more where their patents are enforced by the government and less in i.e. african nations where they have to compete against ripped off generics that are dumped at way lower prices ( not surprisingly, as the generic manufactures saved the billions of dollars going into R&D). The question of whether patents are moral or useful is a whole other can of worms that I don't want to open, partly because I am not totally convinced either way yet. What I will say though is this: the higher price in countries where they have a monopoly on their drug is the pay off and pay back for the research efforts that they have invested in, often times huge amounts of dollars over very long periods of time. The only reason why people would invest so much money with so many risks and unknowns ( is there a drug to discover?
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
I don't know what your ethics entail. Mine say that no life is less worth than an other. This is the main pillar of western morals. So, how do you suppose this fundamental rule is to be reconciled with appointing committees that actually get to decide on factors that will favor one life over an other?
;-) . The janitors in my building are paid more per year than software engineers in India. The result is that U.S. workers, even if willing to work for $0, are still more expensive than t
Since you asked, my ethics do not include a belief that all lives are equally valuable. I don't believe that western morals are based upon the principle that all lives are equally valuable. I don't believe that a pedophile, murderer, or rapist's life has the same value as that of, say, someone who dedicates their life to curing disease, helping to reduce world hunger, or protecting the environment.
First off are morals: a price cap is akin to slavery.
How so? Enron was not forced to sell the energy to California. If the price cap was set at, say, 1/100th of the market value, Enron wouldn't have sold there.
As every economics bachelor knows, price caps can have just one consequence: insufficient supply.
Canada caps the price of medicines, but there's no shortage of medicine in Canada. In fact, Americans go there to take advantage of the price caps. We've had price regulations on cable TV, and I never heard of a cable TV company refusing to hook someone up at the price cap. We've had price caps on many utilities and it's not lead to shortages. When you have monopolies or companies acting in lock-step, price caps protect the consumer.
Having the grid burning down is just the logical means to the end that the state government has been, unconsciously I hope, pursuing all along: ending power consumption in CA.
A simpler explanation: No one wants a power plant in their backyard. No one wants their children living under high-tension lines. No one wants that ecology destroyed. Maybe the end result is serious power delivery and production problem, but that's unlikely to be the goal in anyone's conscious or subconscious mind.
I strongly doubt your statement, as I have not seen many homeless people working anywhere.
The fact that four Walmart and McDonald's employees can pool their incomes to rent a one bedroom apartment does not mean that any one of those workers makes enough to afford even the most modest apartment on his/her own.
And about the outsourcing, I wrote a whole paragraph that you just ignored, so please either retort or conceed but don't just keep saying it is the root of all evil and a sign for coporate carelessness.
I assure you that I did not ignore anything that you wrote. I may not have had the time to reply to all of it in depth, but I assure you that I read it.
Labor goes where Labor is cheapest. Due to this process, labor becomes more expensive in that area as demand for labor goes up, and so it goes around. This is the markets way of spreading wealth to dirt poor countries as india and china once where. Meanwhile at home, the same products get either a) cheaper or b) better. Whichever it is, it will have positive effects on capital distribution as money is set free to be used in higher order endeavours that where unaffordable before und thusly creating higher level jobs with better wages and also requiring more qualification.
The problem with outsourcing is that we don't have a level playing field. We believe that U.S. workers should not be exposed to toxic and carcinogenic chemicals and we've passed laws and regulations to prevent that. We've passed laws against 12 year-olds working in factories. Building space costs a huge amount. My company can't even lease the space that I occupy for as little as it would cost them to pay a third-world worker to do my job (assuming that the third-world worker could get a U.S. D.o.D. clearance
I thought Todd was unemployed.
"Provided by the management for your protection."