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.
I'm not sure I'd want organs from someone who has ALS. Wouldn't that become a problem for me in time?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
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)
I think you're confusing organ donor with victim of organ harvesting
You have to be brain dead, but on life support machines before the organs are taken. Most transplant centers will only take a few minutes of CPR before they reject a potentail organ.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
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?
That's ok they'll just wait until you're brain dead to do it.
Hell no point waiting I'll just send them around now!
While this may seem like a good idea at first glance, the implications of accepting such requests could be terrifying:
One could imagine threats such as "If you don't give your heart to patient, we will murder your family one by one".
Desperate people with questionable morals will go to great length to save someone they care about.
Cool.
1. Find a surgical team who's morals weigh heavier than their career goals
2. Put the patient on liver dialysis and cardiopulmonary bypass
3. If he dies from complications of being on the machines, that doesn't count as suicide in my book.
Not true. In NY for example it is illegal to remove a patient's organs before he has been pronounced dead by a physician using certain clinical criteria. Depending on the organs in question the pathologist has window of one to 24 hours for the tissue to be viable. A special case is when a patient is on a ventilator. He can be declared "brain dead" which is legally irreversible, clinical death, but all his organs can be kept 'alive' and healthy for days.
Mod Me Up. You'll make a grown man cry.
Were it legal to sell one's own organs (which it should be), he would likely have already sold them, and given the profits to his loved ones - a win-win situation for all involved. Instead, we are stuck with waiting lists and high prices (due to lack of supply, due to ban on selling for profit).
A fiver says he watched the movie "Seven Pounds."
I'm not so sure I'd want the organs of someone suffering from ALS.
THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
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.
NY is considering making organ donation the default status in the state unless you opt out of it. I actually think that's a bridge too far -- the state ought not to assume that I want to give away my body parts without confirmation of this wish.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I saw it on Monty Python's Meaning of Life. (Part V - Live Organ Transplants)
> the state ought not to assume that I want to give away my body parts without confirmation of this wish.
Why? What exactly are you planning to do with them after you die?
How long until the Anti-Kevorkians create a media 'outrage'? You should be allowed to do what you want, when you want with your own manifestation and its components. If they allow people to have 'DNR' clauses attached to them in case of traumatic circumstances, or allow people to preemptively opt out of life support (having the plug pulled before they are 'dead'), then this mans behavior should be allowed.
If you havn't seen 7 Pounds, it is a good watch and hits this issue in a different but powerful light.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
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.
Let his family sell them on the black market, of course. What are you, some kind of communist?
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
and they used to have key man insurance on all workers
I firmly believe that euthanasia should be a legal option for people with such conditions and that if they have the presence of mind to make such a gracious decision, that could potentially benefit so many others, prior to their death that this should be allowed.
Even if they were going to cause problems for the person receiving them(and they shouldn't) most people who are on a transplant list are desperate. Willing to accept anything that will give them that next breath. The next day with their family. If the man chooses to end his life in a way that saves others, more power to him.
no surgeon would do it, lest he lose his license, due to those pesky ethics rules by which doctors must abide.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
I'm not dead yet! I feel happy! I want to go for a walk!
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.
But would they really take organs for transplant from a diagnosed diseased donor?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
There's an episode where House shows a guy how to do the deed and do the least damage to his organs so he can donate them to his son. I forget why there was a sense of urgency. In any case, I forget if and how it all worked out as well. Certainly not something to be replicated in this situation. There's no TV magic to make it all work out IRL.
Of course he would. He's greedy, not stupid!
We don't know the specifics of his case -- in his case, it could be an imminent death sentence. Just like some people survive cancer and some people die of it in short order. Usually an appropriate doctor can take a pretty good guess on these things even if it's not flawless.
You have to be brain dead
That's what? ..... 90% of Americans?
I could not do this to a person - remove their lungs. Sorry the law do not kill is written too deeply on the heart. It's a terribly sad situation, and sometimes sadly there are no easy answers. The conscience can be a terrible task master, and is not to be trifled with.
www.Migrainesoft.com - Computer giving you a headache? We can fix that!
I agree with your perspective, but the state (the united states in this case) has declared ownership of your body while you are alive (for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out). I think the state is wrong, but it is the reality. So your last sentence is not true, unless you caveat it with "should not" or something, because the state does own your cadaver and greatly restricts what your heirs can do with it.
He set it up with the doctors to be put on the machines required to keep him alive until he dies naturally AND he cover all of the expenses.
While I think it would be nice to donate organs and such, sometimes it's just not possible, and this man just needs to accept that or to come up with a way to make it possible.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
As an analogy, let's suppose you have a spare room in your house or apartment. A friend suddenly finds himself needing a place to stay (perhaps his own apartment burned down, he was evicted, or his wife threw him out). Would you say to your friend "You can crash in my spare room for a few days/weeks/months"?
In deciding whether to make that offer, you will be thinking: "Letting my friend stay here will inconvenience me by X amount, but it will benefit him Y amount." Your decision will be partially based on the relative magnitudes of X and Y, and partially based on how nice/altruistic you are.
Gary Phebus (the man in the article) has made that sort of decision. He has compared the benefit to him of his remaining life with ever-deteriorating health (X) against the benefit to anonymous others of him sacrificing X so they have a chance of a long and healthy life (Y).
I greatly admire his attitude.
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.
I would wager he's got the same condition as Magic Johnson... he's rich.
I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
This is OK just so long as NOBODY in the entire donor-to-recipient chain makes a profit. Not one cent. Everything done at cost price.
What are the chances of that...?
No sig today...
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.
So we would basically GPL our organs.
Maybe NY is saying 'after your dead they're no longer your organs'.
ALL OF US are "dead anyway". Life is a condition with a 100% fatality rate. It's just a matter of when.
Lets say 99.999999%. There is that freaky Jewish zombie that nobody has been able to hunt down and decapitate yet...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You're not fooling anyone y'know.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
If you don't own your body, then you are slave.
Then I guess we are all slaves because someone tried to put some THC into his body the other day and got arrested for doing so......
This is not logical. For instance, perhaps no one can possibly "own" a living human being. If you don't own yourself because no one can, then you aren't a slave. You can also "own" your body but still be a slave. You can have your liberty compromised without your body being compromised, for instance if someone threatens to take away your only livelihood unless you comply with their demands. You can also effectively be a slave simply through a lack of understanding of your own freedom.
I only ever see this 'you own your own body' argument from libertarians, who use it to justify absolute property rights. But these absolute property rights lead directly to 'voluntary' slavery: do what I say or starve to death because we own all the property and you do not. The entire premise is a simplistic piece of philosophical masturbation. I say, just as no one can (or should) own the air we breath, no one can (or should) own a human, including themselves. Libertarians want to make everything about ownership, but ownership is a simplistic and selfish concept. I would rather have society based on mutual agreement (which is the only thing society can be based on, really, I just want that explicitly acknowledged.)
Libertarians say, "You own your body, therefore you own the rewards of your work, therefore no one can tell you what to do with your property because that amounts to slavery." I like that conclusion, but why go to such convoluted lengths to reach it? It's much simpler like this: "You control the rewards of your work because everyone agrees that they would like to control the rewards of theirs." That's it. No need to invoke ownership or slavery at all, just agreement. And it leaves open the idea that we can and should limit property rights when they interfere with society. Sometimes, there are things that are more important than having total control over your own stored labor. For instance, pollution is an externality. That means that you should not be allowed to pollute your own property, because it imposes a cost on others. You should also not be allowed to buy up all the property and make everyone work for you or starve to death.
In short, "I own my own body and therefore should have absolute property rights" leads, inevitably, to slavery. "We agree to these sets of rights and obligations" does not necessarily lead to slavery.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
On topic to an extent: Sometimes knowing you have a viable way out (in this case through physician assisted suicide) can encourage you to prolong your issues and maybe, just maybe, you might make it through.
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. After all, mainline Christians believe that the soul exits the body upon death, leaving it an empty shell. The body is therefore meaningless and unimportant after death. Christian burial practices developed for the sake of the deceased's living relatives and friends, as a form of remembrance and respect, not out of any religious belief that the body should be kept whole--a purely social, not religious, artifact.
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
I am an organ donor.
My wife is an organ donor.
My children (6 and 4) are organ donors.
. . . are you trying to say that you believe in organ donation or what?
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!
I believe that should be 'eke'
http://www.acetonestudio.com
That's pretty much what is already happening with this guy, though instead of letting a surgeon harvest his organs for others, his doctors will gradually convert them into money.
Would this guy's organs be considered good if they are coming from a diseased host? How would the recipient of the new organ feel about where the organ came from?
http://www.acetonestudio.com
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.
Last I checked (hmmm... a few months ago when I renewed my license), the "opt-in" option was not an "opt-in" option.
It was a checkbox to select one or the other. Not sure how this new law (if it passes) changes things. Do the checkboxes get re-ordered?
Even if my memory is faulty (which it very well may be - and I am too lazy to go to the NYS DMV site and download an app to check - no pun intended), then Instead of reading "Would you like to be an organ donor" and not checking it, how difficult is it to check "Would you NOT like to be an organ donor?"
Really, for anyone who can read, I think this is a big non-issue. It is pretty simple to put an x or checkmark on a box - or choose not to.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
for example, you are not allowed to kill yourself, to do so is an act of homicide and things like life insurance don't have to pay out
Suicide != homicide and the insurance company exclusion is a matter of a private contract not a mandate from the state. Some insurance companies do pay out for suicides though they usually have a waiting period on that type of coverage so you can't buy the policy today and off yourself tomorrow.
In any case, as I said earlier, the free exercise of religion is reason alone why this will be struck down by the courts if the state is foolhardy enough to go forward with it. Anything else is just gravy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
For pete's sake. We are supposedly living in a modern, civilized society. I should be able to decide the time and method of my departure without negative consequence to my family. Departing this Earth should be something a family can embrace together, accept, and grow from - not something that we're forced against our will to drag out until the last possible moment, causing irreparable emotional harm to the survivors.
and whatever religious or superstitial concerns may arise,
Nothing personal, but I just wanted to point out the redundancy in this statement. ;-)
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Free exercise of religion is bullshit.
Not according to the 1st amendment jackass.
Congrats for once again proving that intolerant atheists bear much in common with intolerant religious types. Is it hard going through life when you are this convinced of your own superiority or does it come naturally?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
Stephen Hawking has Lou Gehrig's disease and his condition is actually stable. While some people might think that living in a wheelchair in his condition not much of a life, they should realize just how much he has accomplished while in that condition! He has even remarried and fathered childeren!
Vector means bacterium, virus, or prion-protein. Co-factor means it may be one of multiple causes that might trigger ALS, with the other causes being an environmental shock and/or genetic. Until the cause is known, many doctors might be wary of using organs.
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.
"I don't want to go on the cart!"
"Oh don't be such a baby"
Okay, make organ transplants the default only if the deceased can be identified and it is clear they have not taken action to opt-out. Problem solved.
I don't necessarily agree with opt-in organ transplants as the default, but my objection reason(s) would be different from yours.
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.
The code is all there... we just need to learn how to read it.
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?
Okay, make organ transplants the default only if the deceased can be identified and it is clear they have not taken action to opt-out. Problem solved.
Unacceptable.
My body, my choice. Not yours. Not the Doctors. Not some legislator in Albany or Washington. My choice.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I never said "The man is gonna harvest your organs". All I've said is that it's a violation of the person to take someone's organs without their consent. I don't care if it's the state doing it, the doctor doing it or some criminal doing it. It's abhorrent and indefensible.
I'm a registered organ donor. I give blood. I've been tested for bone marrow donation (though I haven't actually done it). All of these are things that I gave my informed consent for. Absent that consent you have no right to violate my body. Doctors/nurses/EMTs can assume the existence of that consent when someone is unable to respond and their life is on the line (i.e: accident victim) but they can't assume it's existence for end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his family/medical proxy.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
I wouldn't.
I can't imagine how poorly organ donors are treated, if regular patients are any indication of the kind of careless people we have as doctors. Organ donors are deliberately kept alive just long enough to extract what is useful. You're worth more dead and dissected as far as the doctors are concerned.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Statistically speaking, you can. :)
You should assume that any random person belongs to the majority. You'll probably be right.
That's why it should be opt-out. Anyone too stupid or lazy to say, "I disagree with the majority and will check this box to indicate my dissent," is someone who deserves to get harvested. :o
"It's a damn poor mind that can only think of one way to spell a word."--Andrew Jackson
The free exercise of religion is sufficient reason on it's own for organ donation to be an opt-in affair.
And The Seperation Of Church And State is sufficient reason on it's own to invalidate your argument. It's a checkbox, if you don't want to dontae your organs it takes two sweeps of the pencil. I'm glad NYS is doing this because after spending 2 hrs at the DMV between the senior citizen that has just soiled his pants, and the women yelling at her kids through her cell phone, the last thing I am thinking about is helping other people but then I leave and regret not changing my organ donor status because in the end it's the right thing to do.
Suck my cock asshole. I already stated in another comment that I'm an organ donor. I have no problem with the concept. I consented to organ donation as soon as I reached the age of majority.
The issue is one of informed consent. Sorry if that distinction is too hard for you to grasp.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Don't you think that's a decision they should make themselves, when they're old enough to understand the implications?
I respect and honour your choice, but I find it very disturbing that you would make it for someone else without their informed consent. It's this sort of casual disregard for the wishes of potential donors that ensures I will never be one.
I'm failing to see where Beardo claims his kids decided. Of course he decided for them. As you state, neither of them has the ability.
As a parent, he has made the decision for them, it's what parents do.
Hopefully he discussed this with his wife. Possibly he discussed it with his kids, but maybe not.
Damn, I wish I hadn't used all my mod points.
Can I have your permission to use this in my will?
The Internet has given stupid people the resources of intelligent people.
Did anyone explain to him that without his heart he will die? He must be a Disney World tourist.
Once I'm dead I will have no further use of this meatbag and anyone who wants a piece of it can have it.
Can I have a piece of it now?
In my view, the biggest flaw here is that the kids probably can't take it back.
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.
Not really, most likely hospitals will be instructed not to get organs from persons whose identity (and hence preference) cannot be confirmed. Anyway, if default is to harvest, then there would be more than sufficient organs available from identifiable people.
"The time has come" the walrus said " for a GOOD swim."
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.
Think about it: to donate, they have to harvest your organs at a point before you've died. You just have to trust that they won't jump the gun because someone really needs a heart. It would be extraordinarily tempting for a doctor to say, well, that guy only has a 25% chance of survival, but my patient has a 75% chance with his heart, so let's take it.
If the system pulls dirty tricks to get people on the donor list, how could they possibly trust it not to jump the gun?
He could move to Oregon. IANAL but I believe what he wants to do would be legal under Oregon's Death with Dignity Act. IIRC Washington has a similar law and Montana has legalized assisted suicide.
You can have your name removed from the organ donor's list. It takes a few minutes, but it's only an annoying phone call.
Parents have to make all decisions for their children at that age. I'd hope that when his children are old enough they will be allowed to chance the decision to their personal preference, but until then it is as any other major decision (including whether to be removed from life support or to perform serious surgery) and up to the parent.
Sure.
A/S/L?
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
What if someone powerful or wealthy is an exact match, and really needs some healthy organs? Think accidents can't be arranged for the right price?
NY is considering making organ donation the default status in the state unless you opt out of it. I actually think that's a bridge too far -- the state ought not to assume that I want to give away my body parts without confirmation of this wish.
So, I see in your signature you have a quote that jokes about how the US Government does not want peace of earth and goodwill toward man.
Yet, you think it's going to far for them to put as default something that can only help people (shall we say, does goodwill) and harms no one? (And no, it doesn't harm you. You are DEAD.).
Anyone too stupid or lazy to say, "I disagree with the majority and will check this box to indicate my dissent," is someone who deserves to get harvested
That's absurd. We have various processes in place (the famous Miranda warning) to protect the people that are too stupid to understand what their rights are. Why is this any different?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So, I see in your signature you have a quote that jokes about how the US Government does not want peace of earth and goodwill toward man.
New York State != US Government and you shouldn't read anything into my signature other than the fact that I like an old school geek movie....
and harms no one?
Taking away my choice to consent to a procedure that violates my person harms me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Sweet...then I get the chance for a Chev Chelio's style spree. Right?
Im thinking that would be way more fun then the next 65 years of my "normal" life...
You can have your name removed from the organ donor's list....
A minor can do this?
I'm not objecting to the parent's duty over the child. What I am concerned about it is the apparent disregard for them having a will of their own. We're trampling on these kid's rights for what, a potential donation? Personally I see the free expression of one's own individual freedom as greater than this possibility. Taking that away from anyone else, especially a child, is abhorrent.
http://biogift.org/ obligatory link for those who wish to donate their body to science.
Sometimes, life itself is sarcasm...
I wholly agree with you on this.
However, your post - at least to me - seemed to link such behavior to an opt-out system in the case of a person not being identifiable; making it impossible to check whether the person is a donor or not (and to what extent they're a donor, etc.)
I fully agree that in such cases, "not a donor" should be the default assumed. This would apply to both opt-out -and- opt-in, really.
No, you can not borrow my car for an extended period of time because we, as a society, have agreed that individuals have certain limited rights to control their own possessions.
Funny, you did not address the part where I explained how and why absolute property rights lead to slavery, you just assert that I am wrong. If property rights are absolute, then the rich can simply buy up all property and force non property owners to work for them, because the non property owners have no other means of support.
Let me be very clear about this concept of natural or God given rights. It is authoritarian, because, if rights are immutable and present from birth, there is only one true set of rights, and these are not open for discussion. So, we have the situation where one person is dictating to others what their rights are, saying "No! These are the natural rights. Rights I do not agree to are not natural, therefore, they don't exist. So shut up, your stupid ideas about rights are unnatural."
Natural and God given rights are an appeal to authority, and they appeal to authority, because they preempt all discussion about rights. Either the right is natural, or it does not and can not exist. No new rights, ever. All the old rights, immutable and unchanging. That is very, very appealing to authoritarian types.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Taking away my choice to consent to a procedure that violates my person harms me.
Your person is no longer. You don't have a me anymore. You're dead. D-E-A-D. Dead. What part of that don't you understand?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
I fail to see the difference between the two.
Greedy people are stupid.
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.
As a parent, you have a responsibility to impress upon your children at least some form of morality. That means imparting to them a set of beliefs and values that you have that may not be shared by other people.
I'm disturbed by this new trend that seems to promote the idea that it's not my right to raise my children in any way I see fit.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
What if your (unspecified) preference was to donate your organs? In this case your choice was violated by the lack of transplant.
Better hope your wife isn't a fan of /.
You could put off the decision until it must be made.
My body, my choice. Not yours. Not the Doctors. Not some legislator in Albany or Washington. My choice.
Agreed. Likewise, the default should be that if you get in an accident, no medical help is provided. If you're unconscious and we can't find your consent form, well, tough luck. Unless you opt into the "yes, please help me" club, we should leave you on the streets to bleed to death. After all, we don't want to offend any religious beliefs you may have.
Irrelevant. I have the right to determine the disposition of my remains after death, in accordance with my own religious beliefs or the lack thereof.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Okay, let me get this straight.
You are giving this guy a hard time for making a decision on behalf of his young children while at the same time arguing that they don't have the ability to decide for themselves ... weird.
Unacceptable.
My body, my choice. Not yours. Not the Doctors. Not some legislator in Albany or Washington. My choice.
As I understand the suggested method with this modification if you can't be identified you will not be used as a donor. Furthermore, if you have chosen to opt out you will not be used as a donor.
I fail to see how someone besides yourself is making the choice for you anymore than they would be making the choice for you today. The difference being, today you happen to agree with them.
Apples to oranges. Doctors can assume consent to save your life when you are unable to give it. They can not assume consent to end your life when you are unable to give it. Only you (through a living will) or your representative (family member or medical proxy) can do that.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Your choice was violated but your body was not. In the opposite situation both were violated.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
If the kid is too young to understand what it means, I don't see the problem. And I think a donation is not an insignificant thing, it could save a life.
It's no different than deciding for a child whether he should be cremated or buried if he dies young. Most likely, the kid didn't have an opinion on it.
On the other hand, if you explain organ donation to your kid, and he says he doesn't want it, then you shouldn't make that decision. But I think its very unlikely that's the case here.
As someone who's father is currently alive because of someone who felt like you do, i thank you from the bottom of my heart (and his new one).
i don't have kids of my own, and i can't imagine how shitty it is for a parent to have a young child die. that said, pretty much anywhere around north america, from what i know, if your child dies you will be the one responsible for paying the costs to dispose of the body in whatever way you choose; your responsibility, your decision. a four-year-old may not understand the pros and cons of organ donation, but neither does a corpse at any age. i may not agree with a parent of a fifteen-year-old making that decision for them, but we're talking about children too young to really grasp what sort of things we're dealing with.
also, kudos to gp for making that tough decision. i'm sure that if some terrible misfortune befalls one of your tykes you can take some comfort knowing that some other parent may get more time with their child because of your kindness.
do not read this line twice.
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.
Children are not legally considered to be mature or educated enough to have a will of their own, This is why they cannot (with the exception of prosecutors who pervade the law) be tried as adults for crimes, cannot consent to sexual relations and such.
Taking that away from anyone else, especially a child, is abhorrent.
I would consider taking a child away from someone else who may have had a fighting chance of a life, far more abhorrent than anything you have mentioned above. All this said, I am a strong supporter of rights for children to be legally allowed to make more choices, especially pertaining to education and religion.
The problem with it being opt-in is that it also makes it lazy.
And in a free society, you have the right to be lazy/ignorant/stupid/insert whatever here. Until the United States becomes a dictatorship or a Communist government, it needs to be opt-in.
Once again, the Slashdotters show their own hypocrisy. You probably think email subscriptions should be opt-in instead of opt-out, but when it comes to organ donations, that needs to be opt-out because, in your words, opt-in makes it lazy.
This is why the United States is failing as a nation. No one seems to want to respect the choices that other people want to make. You all want the Nanny State to make the choices for you.
How can you trust the doctors to do everything they can to save you if you're an organ donor? What if they look and see than letting your life end could save 5 other lives, and they assume that you're probably just going to die anyway (much the same way this guy does)? I don't have enough faith in the system to believe that doctors are above this sort of thing, and I don't want to carry around a card that may become my death warrant someday. That's not selfish, that's just honest.
He wants to give his heart to you. How Hallmark.
There's a fine line between Awwwwww - and - AHHHHHHHHHH!
One letter in fact.
Apples to oranges. Doctors can assume consent to save your life when you are unable to give it.
Why? What if having your life saved is against your religion? Who gave doctors the right to play god? :p
They can not assume consent to end your life when you are unable to give it.
Which nobody was suggesting. This idea that organs have to be harvested while you're alive is asinine, and has repeatedly been shown to be false. When your organs are taken, you are DEAD. D-E-A-D. Doctors cannot end the life of a corpse. Period, full stop.
Now that you've been informed that your objection is a myth, have you got any more reasons why we shouldn't have opt-out organ donation?
I promised I'd be at the Robinsons'. They've lost nine today.
And The Seperation Of Church And State is sufficient reason on it's own to invalidate your argument
Huh? This separation would seem to compel the state not to make assumptions about someone's end of life wishes.
It's a checkbox, if you don't want to dontae your organs it takes two sweeps of the pencil.
Irrelevant.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This idea that organs have to be harvested while you're alive is asinine
I never said that they were. All I said was that Doctors don't have the right to make end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his authorized representative. Organ donation is most definitely an end of life decision. I'm hard pressed to think of something more personal than the disposition of your remains after death. Those decisions are for the patient and his family to make -- not you, the hospital or the state.
have you got any more reasons why we shouldn't have opt-out organ donation?
I've already stated them. It's not my fault you are choosing to ignore what I've said and make bullshit comparisons.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
This is fucking rich. The consensus on this website is that it's wrong when big corporations assume that you've opted-in to their marketing list but the majority of people here have no problem with the state assuming that you opted-in to have your organs cut out of your body when you die.
Fucking hypocrites, the whole lot of you.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
LOL, for someone who does his righteous indignation schtick daily here on this site, it's a wonder you bother.
As for the hypocrisy, I can maybe, just maybe, see that marketing and helping others not die are actually two different things, and I'm sure others can too. Just because you can't doesn't mean you have to choke down your bile so often.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
You are giving this guy a hard time for making a decision on behalf of his young children while at the same time arguing that they don't have the ability to decide for themselves ... weird.
He's mugging for an Insightful mod.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
I never said that they were. All I said was that Doctors don't have the right to make end of life decisions without the consent of the patient or his authorized representative.
No, that's most definitely not what you said.
I've already stated them.
I'm sorry, but "because it's personal" is not exactly a convincing argument. I don't see why a decision to perform surgery on you in order to save your life is any less "personal" than a decision to cut open your corpse and remove some organs. The state already has the right to open up your body after your death in order to perform an autopsy, so we've clearly decided - as a society - that you don't deserve full control of your body after you die, and neither does your family.
It's not my fault you are choosing to ignore what I've said and make bullshit comparisons.
No, it's your fault that you're now backpedaling and lying about what you said. You specifically stated that doctors don't have a right to end your life without your consent, and now you're pretending that you said something completely different.
I think I learned that in an Itch & Scratchy cartoon once.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
Could you provide a few names or authors of that sci-fi?
I mean while the disease itself affects the central nervous system the underlying cause isn't actually known.(There are some leads like glutamate but they're mostly guesses right now.) So for all anybody knows the cause could have been hiding out in all organs and only screws up the nervous system royally.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Then make your choice.
Sitting around and doing nothing isn't making a choice. Complaining when someone makes it for you when you refuse to is a pretty lazy thing to do.
I've personally made my view very clear on organ donation to those who it matters, and I know all my close families views.
Easy solution to the man's issue (stolen from John Q): He could walk into a hospital, get on a bed, and shoot himself in the head.
Nicely sidesteps all law issues, since the doctors would be obligated by their Hippocratic Oath to take his organs, since doing otherwise would be causing unnecessary suffering.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
We only have the executable. No source anywhere to see, let alone documentation.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I have signed up with Lifeshares.org which is an organ donor 'club.'
This group pools together like minded people to increase chances of getting an organ.
All the members agree to give first preference to others in the group - before donating too less philanthropic minded people.
The group increases your chances of quick organ replacement and gets around the very unjust normal politics of organ donation.
Take a look.
"Do not wait for death to come, because death has indeed already come and has not left you. Its teeth are continually in your flesh." - St. Nikolai Velimirovic
Proverbs 21:19
Sometimes I tell jokes.
Sometimes the jokes are funny.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
The single core idea of libertarians is that each person own his own body.
This implies that a person has the right to decide what to do with it. Things like drugs, prostitution, selling parts of your body (organs), should be decided by you and only you. The only thing a person can not do is infringe on someone else's property. Murder, assault, rape, slavery are considered a violation of someone else's property therefore they would be crimes. Murder being the ultimate crime.
This simple position solves this case consistently: he should have the right to decide for himself whether he wants to do this or not.
In fact, he should have the right to sell those organs, and give the proceeds to his family if he wants to. Allowing this would even have the nice effect of reducing organ theft/traffic by not making them so frustratingly scarce. It would also save lives
Unfortunately, in our society we do not own our bodies, the government claims ownership of part of it and feels it has the right to tell you what you can and cannot do with it. It feels entitled to tell you not to take drugs, to decide whether you can donate your organs and to whom, to tell you what you can eat and so on. All this while assuming you are an idiot and that it is doing it "for your own good" because they know better.
If they don't like the new organs, we offer a generous return policy.
They're there affecting their effect.
Somehow I doubt it, and that's very troubling.
Parents can't choose to withhold medical care, for example.
Do they get taken off the list, or do they have to actively take themselves off the list? What if they don't even know?
I find the idea of harvesting someone's organs without their express consent very disturbing.
Anytime you mess with market efficiencies, the market reacts in a way you didn't quite expect. Hence it's certain that someone from the black market will contact him and give him what he wants. And because he'll get the windfall of the value of his organs, he can direct them to doing even more good. Sounds like a candidate for sainthood to me.
If you insist that it's your body and your choice, then, well, make that choice. Saying that organ donation is the default is a whole lot different than mandating it.
The current law states that if you die without a will, your family gets your stuff. Is this a violation of your rights? Of course not -- it's people trying to put your stuff to best use once you're dead. Don't like it, write a will.
Don't like the fact that, if you die, some sick person will get your kidneys? Write a living will.
lol, i concur , he said what needed to be said, someone mod this fellow up..
not flamebait at all, valid statement..
valid especially from a slashdot perspective, in fact
consider most zealots who post here, most are in fact posting from a perspective of greed or convenience... and most are ridiculed, and called stupid.. =)
How Now Brown Cow
Shouldn't that be 'as' he dies?
No, that's most definitely not what you said.
Stop lying. I never claimed that organ donation causes death or that the organs are harvested while you are still alive. Link to the post where I said that or STFU.
You specifically stated that doctors don't have a right to end your life without your consent
They don't.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
It takes a special kind of asshat to deny his own words when there's an easily verifiable record. I'm not sure what motivates you to act in such a way, but I see no reason to continue this farce.
Link to the "easily verifiable record" then or admit that you are lying.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
There's an xkcd reference here, but I can't check it at work to get the URL.
Your work lets you comment on slashdot, but they don't approve of xkcd?
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?
Organ donation should be reciprocal. We should have a database of willing organ donors (in the event of their death). And the priority of someone on a waiting list for an organ should go up only if that person was recorded as a willing donor in the first place (x years earlier and continuously until now).
Because then, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The overwhelming majority of parents would make their own kids donors, because they would most likely want the same opportunity given to their kids should their kids ever need an organ themselve.
And if the parents happen to be too religious, that's fine too. If there is problem with their kids donating organs, there will certainly be a problem for their kids accepting organs as well. And if the parents really want to change their minds at the last minute once an accident does happen, their kid will still be listed on the waiting list (it's just that their kid/baby will be at the very bottom of that list should this happen).
I prefer to die than accept organs from such a poor bloke who refuses to live his life to the limits.
The dead are walking!
And they're chipper!!
Not entirely true. I was about 6 years old when the concept of donating blood was explained to me. I couldn't *wait* to do it, because it made SO much sense, and seemed to be really important in helping others.
On the day of my 18th birthday, when it was legal for me to donate blood, I went in. I've been a regular doner ever since.
I wasn't particularly a genius at age 6 but the idea of donating blood or organs wasn't hard to grasp.
(And by the by, the only reason I didn't become a registered organ doner was for religious reasons. The idea still seemed good, but apparently God was against it. I'll give you that. At 6, I was a lot less resistant to religious ideas.)
It's worth noting that most people with ALS die after a few years because they choose not to continue with permanent life support gear, and kick the bucket when their lungs stop working by themselves. If mechanical breathing assistance is provided, the patient will continue living indefinitely (until a complication or unrelated illness gets them).
[my mother has had ALS for around 18 years now]
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.)
LEGO reference.
Kids today are tyrants. They contradict their parent, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates 400 BC
Speak for yourself, mortal.
If enithin kan gow rong it whil. (Murfey)
Ah really? But what we already do with their dead bodies otherwise is absolutely not by their choice either. It is the choice of a rational adult, taken to reduce the health risks decaying bodies pose.
Really, I can believe most of the kids do or would want to help the suffering. Of course some more might rather be buried like cinderella or encased in a lollipop, heck, maybe some of the kids might want to be fed to their favorite dog. But I can not imagine any kid that, on its own, would actually want to be locked in a box, and put under the earth to eaten by worms or incinerated.
Well, we know why we bury or burn them instead of doing any of the other things, out of practicality or for disease control reasons. But, while that was not an useful thing to do until just recently, taking organs and using them to heal people is amongst the very rational things we should obviously do prior to disposing of bodies these days. Essentially, there is no way anyone has proven organ donations to be to the detriment of anyone, and it is immediately apparent that it not only helps much, but actually saves life. We otherwise always expect people to save lifes even to the possible detriment of some of their health (eg. letting a bleeding person that you know has aids die because stopping the bleeding was a major possible health risk to yourself will not be acceptable)...
It's the same as claiming your child is of a specific religious belief, agnostic, atheist, liberal, democrat, or whatnot.
Whether or not it's right, I'm not sure it's the same kind of thing - the problem there is labelling, and the problem is it may well be factually incorrect (e.g., saying someone's a Christian, when they don't believe in it). Here there's no labelling, and nothing that's incorrect - when he labels them as donors, he's quite correct, because they are donors.
A closer analogy would be deciding things like whether children can or can't receiving vaccinations or blood donations. Is it the choice of the child, the parents, or the state? If a child is too young to make their own decision, it would be ludicrous to say that a parent deciding to have them vaccinated is equivalent to labelling them a Christian!
Also, with labels, there is a clear default - don't label them anything. What is the default for vaccination, receiving blood donation, or being an organ donor?
Although yes, I'd say that this is something that the child should decide for themselves, at least if they are able. If say, an 8 year old was horrified at the idea of their organs being donated, then they shouldn't (even if the parents think they should). But for a child too young to know or care? Given that organ donation is a great help to many people, and of significant importance, I can see there being an argument for allowing child donors. It's not like the child is going to know any different, when they're dead. The only reason we don't do it for everyone is because some people don't like the idea, but that wouldn't apply if the child is too young to know. Also, remember that in some countries, donation is assumed by default unless the person removes themselves.
I doubt that at age 4 and 6, either of them have that ability.
Right, so your argument about educating and letting them decide doesn't work.
It's not that simple. I'm not a slave, yet I must still follow laws of the state. Right now attempted suicide is illegal. You can argue that laws should be changed, or that you have the right to ignore laws, but "you should be free to do whatever you want with your body" is clearly false by any moral measure. It depends how that "whatever" affects others.
The difference between truth and fiction is that fiction has to be plausible.
Actually, no, one of the things my wife and I talked about was donating child-sized organs if something happened to our kids.
A small consolation to losing your child would be that 6 or more other kids would get to live. We came close to losing them both once.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
except that it's what happens now. NHS trusts, insurance companies, national healthcare provides, even hospital administrators do that now. And in reality, it works out pretty well.
I'm just concerned that the donating infrastructure won't seek their consent when once their old enough to make the decision for themselves.
As I said above, I respect and honour your decision to be an organ donor. I don't want to be one myself because the high pressure campaign to get people on the doner rolls calls into question (in my opinion) their commitment not to harvest my organs until there is absolutely no chance, however remote, of survival.
I am on the bone marrow list, though, and I do hope I match someone someday.
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.
I don't see how that can possibly be true. A donor's organs needs to match almost perfectly with the recipient and the organs need to be free of disease. How would they know whether the donor has any genetic or personal history of countless diseases without knowing who the donor is?
Let his family sell them on the free market, of course. What are you, some kind of communist?
let them.
we have more then enough people in this world anyways.
Be seeing you...
You can mod past five, it may not be perfectly reflected in the score but he does get the karma.