Slashdot Mirror
Self-Driving Cars Will Make Organ Shortages Even Worse (slate.com)
One of the many ways self-driving cars will impact the world is with organ shortages. It's a morbid thought, but the most reliable sources for healthy organs and tissues are the more than 35,000 people killed each year on American roads. According to the book "Driverless: Intelligent Cars and the Road Ahead," 1 in 5 organ donations comes from the victim of a vehicular accident. Since an estimated 94 percent of motor-vehicle accidents involve some kind of a driver error, it's easy to see how autonomous vehicles could make the streets and highways safer, while simultaneously making organ shortages even worse. Slate reports: As the number of vehicles with human operators falls, so too will the preventable fatalities. In June, Christopher A. Hart, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said, "Driverless cars could save many if not most of the 32,000 lives that are lost every year on our streets and highways." Even if self-driving cars only realize a fraction of their projected safety benefits, a decline in the number of available organs could begin as soon as the first wave of autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles hits the road -- threatening to compound our nation's already serious shortages. We're all for saving lives -- we aren't saying that we should stop self-driving cars so we can preserve a source of organ donation. But we also need to start thinking now about how to address this coming problem. The most straightforward fix would be to amend a federal law that prohibits the sale of most organs, which could allow for development of a limited organ market. Organ sales have been banned in the United States since 1984, when Congress passed the National Organ Transplant Act after a spike in demand (thanks to the introduction of the immunosuppressant cyclosporine, which improved transplant survival rates from 20-30 percent to 60-70 percent) raised concerns that people's vital appendages might be "treated like fenders in an auto junkyard." Others feared an organ market would exploit minorities and those living in poverty. But the ban hasn't completely protected those populations, either. The current system hasn't stopped organ harvesting -- the illegal removal of organs from the recently deceased without the consent of the person or family -- either in the United States or abroad. It is estimated that, worldwide, as many as 10,000 black market medical operations are performed each year that involve illegally purchased organs. So what would an ethical fix to our organ transplant shortage look like? To start, while there's certainly a place for organ donation markets in the United States, implementation will be understandably slow. There are, however, small steps that can get us closer to a just system. For one, the country could consider introducing a "presumed consent" rule. This would change state organ donation registries from affirmative opt-in systems (checking that box at the DMV that yes, you do want to be an organ donor) to an affirmative opt-out system where, unless you state otherwise, you're presumed to consent to be on the list.
They can compensate by giving out free motorcycles. And keeping helmets expensive, of course.
we're closer and closer to organ cloning.
Think of all those people who are going to die because of all those other people who aren't going to die!
You mean healthy people will keep their healthy organs, instead of dying and giving them to unhealthy people?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Or perhaps it will just create more incentive for the Chinese to more aggressively harvest organs from their prison populace.
Just implement a car self-driving mode that, following an organ shortage, starts driving the car very fast, so that plenty of organs for transplant are promptly collected. The only question remaining to solve is to decide if it is better to collect the organs needed from the passengers or from nearby pedestrians.
"Think of all the people who will now die because of all the people who won't die". Classic!! LOLz
There is so much coming out about self driving cars, even through the tech is years away from mass use. We may never seen consumer owned self driving vehicles either, just due to security and safety issues. I wrote a post on this recently:
http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-transportation-problem/
It goes into many of the hardware, software and general transportation issues with self driving cars. I don't think they'll be a reality in the near future. They're a good 6 ~ 8 years off at a minimum.
It will probably be a long time before truck drivers are completely replaced - take a look at railroads, for example. It would be technically possible to automate railroads right now, but the rail companies haven't done so; having a person onboard is very useful for legal liability, security, and fixing all the minor, odd issues that come up, and so on. I guess that we will probably end up with "freight stewards" in trucks, where the computer does most of the driving, but the steward takes over for odd cases, and gets out and fixes minor issues to keep the truck on the road, provide physical security to the freight, and help with loading/unloading at the end points.
What percentage of the people who need organ transplants are in that condition because their organs were damaged in an automobile crash? Is it significant, or is it tiny?
#DeleteChrome
Until the leap-year bug hits, and we have a bunch of organ donors all at once, right?
Seriously though, we're closer to lab-grown organs than we are to self-driving cars. This is a problem that is (fortunately) well on the way to being solved.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
It seems that science is close to being able to grow human organs in pigs. So maybe we don't have to worry so much about losing transplant organs because fewer people are dying in car crashes.
This isn't a bad idea....... Let's compel all prisoners to submit their organs in the event they should be executed Or die.
Step up the number of offenses that will be given the death penalty in order to help with the shortages, And make sure the manner of death preserves the organs.
More than one count of 1st degree murder = Automatic death penalty for 90% of cases.
Being convicted a second time dealing hard drugs or narcotics after serving Jailtime, or a 3rd time for any illegal substance = Automatic death penalty for 90% of cases.
Being convicted of aggravated rape on more than 1 victim Or sexual assault or statutory rape on more than one minor victim = Automatic death penalty for 90% of cases.
There are more than enough people being caught doing these crimes to be taken out of society make up for the shortfall that safer cars' bettering society will cause.
This should also help with prison population issues and associated costs and reduce recidivism.
That is the worst example of the broken window fallacy that I've ever heard.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If less people are dying on the road (resulting in organ shortage) those lives are already saved. Can't say I support people dying for the sake of their organs. Hopefully through, it will accelerate artificial organ (biological or chemicoelectrical) development.
This! REading some of these posts, it would seem that some folks here want to go out and kill others to harvest their internal organs.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
First step will be modifying the current hours of service regulations. I envision the driver doing the pickup, getting the rig onto the highway, then sleeping in back while the truck self-drives overnight. Wake up the next day to fuel up, then bring it in to the next warehouse.
Nope, no sig
... who survive, are in that population of people who need organs?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Such people â" who are convinced, factories exist to provide employment â" are, to put it mildly, cretins.
Of course factories exist to provide profit for the rich factory owners. What the people (who are not factory owners) should do is every so often stage a revolution, round up a lot of the factory owners and kill them, then redistribute their wealth. After that, go back home and wait for a new crop of rich factory owners to grow. This would be so much better than working in a factory. And this is what you would get if there were a lot of unemployed hungry people and some rich people in the same country.
It will probably be a long time before truck drivers are completely replaced - take a look at railroads, for example. It would be technically possible to automate railroads right now, but the rail companies haven't done so; having a person onboard is very useful for legal liability, security, and fixing all the minor, odd issues that come up, and so on. I guess that we will probably end up with "freight stewards" in trucks, where the computer does most of the driving, but the steward takes over for odd cases, and gets out and fixes minor issues to keep the truck on the road, provide physical security to the freight, and help with loading/unloading at the end points.
That sounds very inefficient. I'm thinking it will go in three directions:
1) Remote operation, we do it with drones so why not trucks? If each truck needs help maybe 1% of the time one operator can support a whole fleet.
2) Location-based staff that help trucks in their area, like a tow truck light that either work at a depot or loading/unloading area or are on call.
3) Use armored cars, stronger locks, dye packs if forced entry and have the car report in as often as possible. Miss a checkpoint, alarm goes.
Pretty sure the moment trucks drive themselves the whole "one truck, one man" concept will go out the window pretty quick. That said I think we're still some years away from commercially available self-driving cars.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Iran has a legal (and regulated) market for kidneys. Donating a kidney is a mild risk, but frankly less of a risk than many professions.
There are lots of things wrong with our organ policy, but the way to fix it is NOT to continue (or increase) dangerously stupid activities in the hopes of getting donors.
Instead we can fix the "no compensantion laws" that are ridiculously tight, and do simple things like:
1) Have tax credits that cover things like a) travel and housing costs for donors, b) unemployment payments if you have to take more than 2 weeks off to donate,
2) Require all government ID's (except passports) to have a field for organ donation yes/no, on the front of the ID. You want to drink, drive, etc. you have to at least think about being a donor.
3) Fix the opt - in system - either 1) Legally enforce opt in for donations so if you sign permission for organ donation, your heirs can not over-ride it) and/or 2) allow states to use an opt-out system, so people have to consciously say no thanks to avoid being listed as an organ donor, rather than go out of their way to sign up.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Fewer organs for most of us, maybe. But for Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Travis Kalanick, and the other self-driving car company executives... well, when they need an organ, a perfectly matching donor will have the perfect crash.
Priority on the recipient list if the patient had been on the donor list for at least 2 years prior to getting sick
Parents can add their children to the donor list to receive this priority as well
The donor registration can no longer be overridden by the family
A tax break for being a registered donor
Three of the five subway lines in Singapore are fully automated with no driver. From what I understand increasing/decreasing service is a matter of someone pushing some buttons in a control center, and more trains make their way to/from the yards. They're essentially horizontal elevators.
Of course this is only possible due to strict control of the right of way - platform screen doors and having the entire route underground allow for this.
If NYCT can do this with the L line (which would mean enclosing the outside portion) then they might be able to get rid of the entire crew. Not a union violation if there are no union employees taking on additional duties (which was how they 'won' the conductor ruling, 8 car trains with doors controlled by just the train operator).
Countries have experimented with the death penalty for stealing, and discovered that robbers would kill their victims instead of letting them go. After all, if the punishment for robbery and murder are the same, you may as well commit the crime least likely to get you caught.