Slashdot Mirror
Man Wants to Donate His Heart Before He Dies
Gary Phebus wants to donate his heart, lungs, and liver. The problem is he wants to donate them before he dies. Gary was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, better known as Lou Gehrig's disease, in 2008. Phebus says he'd like to be able to donate his organs before they deteriorate, and doesn't consider his request suicide because he's "dead anyway."
While I don't really care to stop him in his request - let him do what he wants - I still consider the "dead anyway" argument flawed. ALL OF US are "dead anyway". Life is a condition with a 100% fatality rate. It's just a matter of when. Just because his when is likely sooner than most (not definitely though - I'm currently healthy but could easily be hit by a car this afternoon, and him still outlive me), doesn't make his death any less significant.
In short, it's still suicide. The only question is, whether suicide should be legal or not. Were I in his shoes it's not a choice I would make (might as well eek out as much time as I can), but I wouldn't deny him the right to make the choice.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Give the guy an evaluation and if he isnt deemed crazy or suicidal grant him his wish. His decision is rational enough
Than someone jumping in front of a bullet to avoid it hitting someone else. Both are willingly inviting death to save another's life.
Sadly, the standard array of (AMA approved) bioethicists isn't ready for this yet. A very brave fellow who's picture should be in the dictionary in the definition of altruism.
It's the same physician-assisted suicide argument that cropped up so many years ago. The only difference is that this guy's going for a "noble hero" approach instead of a "suffering patient".
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And yet you would no doubt take a donated organ if you needed one.
You are the worst sort of person.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
And perhaps take some time to reflect on what the world would be like without people willing to sacrifice everything for someone else, even a stranger.
Sometimes being in the limbo between life and death, waiting for it to arrive, is too much to bear. Give him peace in a dignified and respectful way.
Perhaps it says something about us, that we require a psych eval before allowing someone to give so freely of themselves?
He may not want to accept being wheelchair bound but he could have a fulfilling life with ALS, even though the chances are relatively slim. He should take up physics, after all Stephen Hawkig isn't going to live *forever*. If he really wants to be an organ donor, he should do what every one else does: file the appropriate paperwork at the DMV and buy a motorcycle*.
*As a motorcycle owner, I am comfortable with this joke.
That's between me and whatever Gods I believe in.
The free exercise of religion is sufficient reason on it's own for organ donation to be an opt-in affair.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There have been suggestions of medical attention switching, whilst the patient is still alive, from preservation of life to preservation of organs, though. That's worrying.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
The problem with it being opt-in is that it also makes it lazy.
Most people don't put any thought into whether they want to be a donor or not, and whatever religious or superstitial concerns may arise, because the question of being a donor or not never affects them in an opt-in scenario.
After all, if you're not a donor, you don't have to think about parts of your body being used to help others. It's easy and lazy.
If you make it opt-out, people will be forced to think about this and make a decision to either remain a donor, or opt out of it.
If it weren't likely to elicit "ZOMG Teh Constutition!" responses, I'd say this should actually really be handled in high school or college. Have people decide actively to either be a donor, or -not- be a donor; no 'default' status being presumed (with younger children falling under the wisdom (with any luck) of their parents/guardians).
If opt-in is the norm.. very well. But I do think that those who choose not to be a donor should in fact be treated differently when it comes to receiving a donor. I wouldn't go as far as saying that they shouldn't get the donor organ (or skin graft or whatever).. but perhaps a donor recipient should automatically be made a donor themselves. After all, it's not 100% their own body they'd be deciding about anymore, and at least somebody whose organ(s) you received -did- choose to be a donor.
If you make it opt-out, people will be forced to think about this and make a decision to either remain a donor, or opt out of it.
And if you make it opt-in and someone gets into an accident and can't be identified for whatever reason (do you always carry your ID when you leave the house?) his wishes aren't going to be respected.
In the absence of proof that a person consented to organ donation it's absurd to slice up his body and take his organs. The ownership of my body does not transfer to the state when I die.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Make sure you don't ever get any of that black blood in you either, Mr. Bunker.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
You have to be brain dead
That's what? ..... 90% of Americans?
You have 3 days to live w/o a transplant. Do you want them now?
I am an organ donor.
I have specifically requested that there is nothing left of me to bury or burn. Once I'm dead I will have no further use of this meatbag and anyone who wants a piece of it can have it. Hang my skeleton in a medical school and show future generations of doctors what bones look like. Let my heart pump blood in a teenager's body and let someone break it. Open my eyes to see another sunrise. Have my skin feel a gentle touch again after someone's had a bad burn. My kidneys and liver would love to have another drink -- and this one's on me. I'm not sure what my spleen does, but I'm pretty sure there's someone lying in a hospital bed who does. Likewise, there's a kid with lukemia who's dying for a little bit of bone marrow.
When there's nothing else left that someone wants, burn it and use it to fertilize an apple tree. Bake me a pie and serve it with ice cream.
My wife is an organ donor.
My children (6 and 4) are organ donors.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
The problem in your example has nothing to do with allowing giving up your organs and everything to do with old-fashioned crime and thugs.
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it dissolve.
I'd mod you "+10 Fucking Awesome" but sadly, Slashdot has no such mod. Hope my intent is worth as much as the action /. wont let me perform.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Since a majority of Americans self-identify as Christian, but not as belonging to a particular sect which disbelieves in organ donation, I think including religion in the mix argues in favor of opt-out organ donation.
No it doesn't. You can't determine someone's moral/religious beliefs regarding the disposition of their remains based on what the "majority" believes.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
No, you made your kids organ donors. They didn't decide.
It's the same as claiming your child is of a specific religious belief, agnostic, atheist, liberal, democrat, or whatnot. As much as you seem extremely honourable about your after-death actions, I have a hard time accepting people will time and time again press their own ideas onto their children.
Educate them, give them the ability to make their own decision. I doubt that at age 4 and 6, either of them have that ability.
Ahaha, I was thinking "but anti abortionists don't use that... oh" Hmm, I guess you're right, the pro choice people use it. It's still just a foolish appeal to authority. I mean, we're potentially talking about two people's bodies, but one of them is a total leach and can't survive without the other.
In this case, argument is still stupid and on the wrong track. We do not need to delve into the philosophical morass in search of when human life begins. We need to look at the concept of killing versus murder. Many, if not most of us agree that sometimes, ending someone else's life is okay, because society has an overriding interest. I don't think the death penalty is the greatest idea, but I do believe in killing in self or national defense, for instance.
So the argument is simple, does society have the same kind of vested interest in ending the gestation of a fetus that we accept as valid reasons for killing in other circumstances? The evidence says yes, it does. Look at crime rates, since abortion was legalized they have gone down. Unwanted children often turn into criminals. They ruin the lives of their parents and communities and create costs that all of us have to bear.
If you want to argue positions, it seems advantageous to do so on the utility to the individual. As I believe rights are derived from agreements, in order to create or destroy rights, all you need is agreement of the majority (or whatever your constitution says. You do have a constitution you all agreed to, right?) So all you need is to convince people. Sure, you can try to convince people using arguments based on 'God given' or 'natural' rights, but these are mere appeals to authority and should not serve to convince anyone with half a brain and a grasp of logic.
To some, the idea that there are no rights but what we make may seem terrifying and arbitrary. To me, it is the ultimate liberation. Freedom is not happy "I get to do whatever I like" funtime. Freedom is hard, and it comes with responsibilities that many, I think, would rather not face.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
preserving one life, or preserving several.
I don't suppose any of these decisions are easy, but how many people die every year due to a lack of an available organ? How many people do we keep alive for a few days, or a few hours just for the benefit of their families emotional state (which is a product of a culture we created), and in the process wreck their organs?
Having grown up in a rich country (canada), and spent a lot of time in poor ones, we in the rich world do a catastrophically bad job of making hard choices, myself included. We keep people alive, when they aren't able to live, and we treat the absolute maximum survivability of one individual as paramount over the reasonable survivability of many. It's an emotional allocation of resources, not an efficient one. Whether it's healthcare dollars or peoples organs, they are in truth, resources which can be, and are managed. The goal is to manage them efficiently. That needs to combine the people, and actual experts, who are removed from the emotional realities of the situation.
When a soldier sees a grenade land in the middle of his unit, and, in 3 seconds or less decides his life is worse less than his comrades jumps on the grenade and kills himself, whether he (and the rest his unit) could have all managed to get out of the way or not, we give them a posthumous medal, a flag, usually a promotion in rank so his family gets a better pension. But when a person spends years carefully assessing their role in the world, and the quality of life they have, vs what they can do we get all offended.
I think it's encouraging that we would start looking to preserve lives, rather than a life. When you stop throwing silly amounts of money at a problem you start thinking responsibly about what is important, and what can, and should be done. If you build a system that lets people be (emotionally) greedy, and stupid, they will be, because people are. If you build a system centred around helping not just your mental state, but the physical and mental state of people who you don't even know you're more likely to get a more efficient use of the resources available. This requires first and foremost that doctors be honest with patients, and each other, about what a prognosis is. Secondly it require a society that lets people be honest with themselves about what their prognosis is. As the original article states, this guy has had 2 years to come to grips with this, when the life expectancy for someone with ALS is about 4 years (20k people with ALS, 5k/year diagnosis). For every stephen hawking there are probably 4999 people who don't even make the 4 year mark, the quicker you can come to grips with the time you have, the more you can do with it, and the more you can value the time someone else might have too.
True - and that is a risk that you take yourself when you don't carry any form of identification. This is no different from a DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) card. If you forget to bring that, get in an accident, and you get resuscitated anyway.. well, tough.
Yes - my ID, my credit card, my debit card, my drivers' license, my (medical) insurance card, my unlimited-movies-at-the-theater card and, of course, my donor registration card I -always- carry with me when I leave the house same as I do my keys (can't get back in without them).
For a moment I was wondering if you meant to argue that case in your first sentence - but I guess you're going for that approach here; If the system is opt-out and somebody can't be identified, that their organs would be taken under a presumption that they are a donor. Just in case: heck no. Of course the person should be identified first to get a conclusive donor vs non-donor either way; otherwise: presume non-donor.
That remains to be seen under many, many jurisdictions, especially as time passes from the time of death. In fact, if you are the victim of a homocide, ownership of your body -is- temporarily transferred to the state for purposes of conducting their investigation. Your body would only later be released to your family / loved ones / etc.
But trying to muddy the waters by appealing to people's emotions that "opt-out" = "The Man is gonna harvest your organs!"? really?
Grow up. Why do you even care what happens to your body after you're brain dead? What's the big deal? Is it really that hard to understand? Let me spell it out in all-caps for you: YOU WON'T NEED THOSE ORGANS ANYMORE. YOU WILL BE DEAD.
Fuck you and your choice, asshole. I sure hope you don't ever need a transplant some day.
Well, they play with LEGO all the time. (There's an xkcd reference here, but I can't check it at work to get the URL.)
But yes, you are technically correct that my kids are not making the decision. I would hope that they get the chance to observe my actions over the course of their childhood and learn to act with decency towards their fellow human beings, rather than being pedantic about how you can never really make decisions. ;)
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
If they don't have the ability to decide then why not pick organ donor over not an organ donor? When they are old enough to make the choice, they can. Personally I think 6 is more than old enough, but I suppose it depends on the kid. My point is that signing them up as "not donors" is a decision as well.
So the argument is simple, does society have the same kind of vested interest in ending the gestation of a fetus that we accept as valid reasons for killing in other circumstances? The evidence says yes, it does. Look at crime rates, since abortion was legalized they have gone down. Unwanted children often turn into criminals. They ruin the lives of their parents and communities and create costs that all of us have to bear.
I find this proposal of "valid reasons for killing" to be quite modest. I believe that a rational expansion of this policy would be to euthanize all first-time criminal offenders, as it is known there is a high recidivism rate, and that these criminals often turn into worse criminals and ruin the lives of their families and communities and create costs that all of us have to bear. Additionally, the handicapped or the otherwise disabled (by birth or by accident) are also known to ruin the (planned) lives of their parents/family and to create costs that all of us have to bear (ADA regulations). The sad fact is also that certain minority groups often turn into criminals and ruin the lives of those around them, I believe it is only reasonable that society purge them as well - for the greater good.
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Well, if you wait until they're old enough, then there will never be any child-sized organs to donate. Right now, when a child dies, the parents may be asked about organ donation (a very sensitive topic, obviously, but many parents chose to help another child survive, despite being unable to save their own). Beardo has merely made that decision ahead of time, hopefully for a situation that will never come.
I have a hard time accepting people will time and time again press their own ideas onto their children.
Yes, finally somebody agrees with me!
People shouldn't press their own ideas on their children.
They should press MY ideas on their children!
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?