Should donating organs by compulsory?

[chevy]

Originally Posted by pds

My "gift" becomes someone's $315,000 paycheck???



Let me sell it - or target the donation - but don't take it from me.

http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/liver/p...s/finance.html

Isn't it the reason why you pay for an insurance ?

[reed]

I'm not sure I understand. This is not a question of selling "something" but passing "it" on to somebody who needs "it" in case of sudden death. Selling organs while you are alive is another piece of cake.
Go to the China (or elsewhere) "traffic of organs" file for further details.

You get hit by a Mac Truck. Okay? The kidney is intact...the rest is squash. What do you wish to do? Save a life with an intact kidney (or liver, etc.) or chuck the lot in a coffin?
A true ecologist would say: "Recycle it."

[Gypsymoth]

As a citizen of the United Snakes of America, where greed-gone-mad is practiced regularly and with the greatest of religious fervor, and money and property are valued far, far more highly than human well-being and welfare, I would consent to donate my offal, free of charge of course, ONLY if the physicians and hospital making use of my sweetbreads, etc, provide their services entirely free of charge to the recipient(s) of my delicacies. I mean, it's only fair, no?
As one of the 50 million Americans sans medical insurance,
I'm a self employed writer and gardener, I, a., can't afford it....it's obscenely expensive, and, b., couldn't get it anyway even if I could since I have a "pre-existing condition", and health insurance carriers, being profit making corporations, are concerned with one thing only... the bottom line, their profits.
The US, of course, doesn't provide medical/health care for its citizens, except for, as one example, its senators and congressmen/women, most of whom are already very well heeled and could easily afford the best medical care/insurance on their own but choose to avail themselves of the best medical care at taxpayer's expense, millions of said taxpayers who are, like me, without it. Really sick and perverse, no?
Which reminds me, I'm looking forward to seeing Michael Moore's latest flick, "Sicko", his jab at the sick(and sickening) state of the US medical industry.... and the millions of folks who suffer because of it.

[Mikuro]

Naturally YOU won't be the one to cash the check, but you probably have heirs.

Insurance is a non-issue. Either way mountains of money are involved. Either you have insurance and it would cover the organ the same way it (in theory) covers the rest of the costs, or you don't, in which case the cost of the organ would be just a drop in the bucket.

I'm not saying I agree with this stance. I think it's a little perverse, but then, the whole medical industry is perverse.

[pds]

Originally Posted by reed

I'm not sure I understand. This is not a question of selling "something" but passing "it" on to somebody who needs "it" in case of sudden death. Selling organs while you are alive is another piece of cake.
Go to the China (or elsewhere) "traffic of organs" file for further details.

You get hit by a Mac Truck. Okay? The kidney is intact...the rest is squash. What do you wish to do? Save a life with an intact kidney (or liver, etc.) or chuck the lot in a coffin?

I'm not talking about the financial gain, I'm talking about ownership. The transplant industry makes a fortune on the whole process and as someone said, the "cost" of the organ is the least significant part, even if it sold by a "live" donor.

That industry is incredibly corrupt. A friend of mine was on the liver donor list for years when Mickey Mantle was diagnosed with hepatitus C (a by product of his binge drinking). Mickey got a liver in three months and my friend continued to wait till they found out that his wife could donate half of her own.

A true ecologist would say: "Recycle it."

If the ecologist owned it - he should. Trash can be recycled because it is thrown away, therefore owned by the trashman. But would the trashman be able to take the landlord's good china and recycle it with the glass? It belongs to the landlord, be he alive or dead.

I think voluntary donorship is the only way to go and the way to encourage it is to make the process of getting a donated organ transparent and less costly.

[reed]

If somebody can benefit from my kidney (on the cheap) no problem. If there are scum doctors and HMO's who make mega bucks on the organ donated, I have my doubts.But what the hec...I saved somebody. Maybe.
"Free" National heathcare is another problem. Another forum? Especially in the USA. In France it is NOT free. But one is protected in a certain manner for sure. Sarkozy (the new President) seems to be heading towards the American system. Less State aid and more private health insurence (Blue Cross/Sheild, etc. kind of organizations...les Mutuals). Not now, but later on when he is well planted in his mandate as president. A political hot potato for the moment.
THE debate is always there and the solutions seem hard to find. I'm all for universal heath coverage. 100%. But NOTHING is free. Somebody has to pay for it. State taxes and other indirect taxes, etc..
An aside, the money used for the Bush/Iraq War (1000$ a second), for example, might have been better used for such problems. Are we all in agreement?
Good health to you all.

[CincyJim]

What a dumb question!

In the case of the originator of this thread I vote for a mandatory brain transplant! Even Bush is smarter.

[fryke]

Huh? Are you sure Bush will donate his brain to rhisiart? Obviously, you have your own thoughts about this subject. I guess, from your "answer", that you're against getting an organ replacement that could save your life one day. Gladly I'll take it instead should I need it at the same time.