# Should donating organs by compulsory?



## Rhisiart (May 31, 2007)

Heaven forbid that anyone of us were to meet an timely death. But if the worst was to happen, our organs may allow others with terminal disease to live longer. 

I am talking about presumed consent here (doctors will automatically remove your organs in the event of death, unless you carry a card to say you don't want this).

In the UK, this is becoming a big issue as transplant organs are rare. The British *opt in* system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you want to donate your organs, doesn't seem to be working.

I understand in some countries they have have an *opt out* system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you do not want to donate your organs, which makes far more organs available.

Any thoughts my fellow macaficionados?


----------



## minckster (May 31, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> In the UK, this is becoming a big issue as transplant organs are rare. The British *opt in* system, i.e. carrying a donor card to say you want to donate your organs, doesn't seem to be working.


 Letting people sell their organs, as part of a bequeath, would probably solve this problem.


----------



## bbloke (May 31, 2007)

I'd say organ donation should not be compulsory.  While it is great when people choose to donate organs, there will be those who object (on the grounds of religion or other beliefs, for instance).  Those people should not be compelled, against their beliefs, in my view.  

In more general terms, and at risk of digressing somewhat, I suppose one could draw parallels with charity.  Should one be compelled to donate to charity?  If so, how would the charities be selected, how much should be donated, etc.?  I think it is best to let people make acts of kindness, rather than try to force them, under which circumstances, it is no longer an act of kindness but a demand from the State (and people might become more reluctant to be charitable).


----------



## Giaguara (May 31, 2007)

Italy was at some point trying to make a law to make everyone by default an organ donor if they didn't opt out .. at least it was in the media some years ago.

I think it should be voluntary. 

For the cost of one kidney / liver / heart etc transplant, hundreds of people who otherwise are starving to death, could be kept alive...


----------



## icemanjc (May 31, 2007)

I never really thought of it, I really wouldn't want to give my organs.


----------



## Ferdinand (May 31, 2007)

icemanjc said:


> I never really thought of it, I really wouldn't want to give my organs.



That's also how I see this.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 1, 2007)

Part of me thinks that yes, it's only sensible. Let people opt out if they want to, but why should it not be the norm?

But another part of me is so cynical and distrusting of the medical business that I think people with desirable organs would be made more likely to die in any number of unprovable ways if consent were implicit. Hospitals already treat people like pieces of meat. I hate to think what would happen if they generally had something to gain from their patients' deaths.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 1, 2007)

Mikuro said:


> But another part of me is so cynical and distrusting of the medical business that I think people with desirable organs would be made more likely to die in any number of unprovable ways if consent were implicit. Hospitals already treat people like pieces of meat. I hate to think what would happen if they generally had something to gain from their patients' deaths.


Yes, I know what you mean.  A friend of a friend, who works in the medical profession, said he had the same concerns...


----------



## fryke (Jun 1, 2007)

I'm not that paranoid. I'd go for an opt-_out_ strategy, i.e. anyone is automatically an organ-donor, but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing) calls for an "out", you can get a non-donor card or something like that. Before they cut you open and start dealing your organs around, officials would, of course, have to make sure you're not on a non-donor list.

Most people I've talked about this in recent days (obviously spurred by that TV show about it) had very similar things to say:

1. I'm not sure I'd want another person's organ(s). (My answer to this is: If you're dying, you might get sure quickly.)
2. I haven't really thought about it, but yes people should have my organs if I die and they're still of some use.

The important part: They haven't really thought about it but wouldn't mind giving organs. That means that an opt-out strategy is called for. In my book.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 1, 2007)

A similar poll in the British Medical Journal (yes, I can crib at the best of times) has most respondents supporting an Opt Out, i.e. your organs may be taken unless, as Fryke says, you carry a non-donor card.

Most of these respondents are doctors and other health professionals. Perhaps this explains why they favour the Opt Out system. Either they are out to exploit innocent victims (I think not), or they see the anguish in seriously ill patients awaiting new organs.


----------



## icemanjc (Jun 1, 2007)

Maybe I would do it only for my family members.


----------



## chevy (Jun 1, 2007)

icemanjc said:


> I never really thought of it, I really wouldn't want to give my organs.



This reminds me an excellent Monthy Python movie.

Mine will be available... once I'm dead.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 1, 2007)

fryke said:


> I'm not that paranoid.


What?  As in you don't listen to what someone inside the medical profession has hinted might well go on?  

The person did not say the hospital would deliberately let someone die if they could save them.  What they did hint at was that if they have to make a choice of who to save when things are tight, and know one person is a donor and the other isn't, they would put the organ donor lower on the priority list than the non-organ-donor.  I don't know how true this is, and it may vary from establishment to establishment, but if an "insider" basically said it, who am I to argue?

A way round that, whether only a fear or whether it actually goes on, is to ensure medical staff only find out who is a donor and who is not after a patient's death.



			
				fryke said:
			
		

> ...but if your illogical faith (i.e. religion or similar thing)


This is not helpful.  Less of the inflammatory remarks, please.   

(This could open a whole new debate about the reasoning behind everyone's beliefs, atheists and thesists alike, and we don't need to go there...)

I might not agree with people who believe they need to keep the body whole after death, for whatever reason, but I won't be derogatory about those beliefs.


----------



## bbloke (Jun 1, 2007)

chevy said:


> This reminds me an excellent Monthy Python movie.


Ah yes, I remember that rather messy scene!   

(The same movie that had Mr. Creosote, but I digress.)


----------



## chevy (Jun 1, 2007)

_ Sound of a bell ringing _
Mr Brown: Yes ?
Man 1: Hello. Can we have your liver ?
Mr Brown: What ?
Man 1: Your liver. It's a glandular organ in your abdomen. You know, it's a reddish-brown, sort of --
Mr Brown: Yeah, yeah, I know what it is, but I'm using it.
Eric: Come on, sir. Don't muck us about.
_ Eric takes a card from Mr Brown's pocket _
Man 1: What's this, then ?
Mr Brown: A liver donor's card.
Man 1: Need we say more ? No.
Mr Brown: Listen, I can't give it to you now. It says, "in the event of death."
Man 1: No one has ever had their liver taken out by us and survived.



... don't be paranoid ...


----------



## reed (Jun 1, 2007)

On a New York State drivers license you check a little box on the back saying:"I hereby make an anatomical gift to be effective upon my death"
 A. Any needed organ parts
 B. The following body part(s)...see below, etc. Signature, witness, date etc.

 I signed, of course. 

 Only the liver may be a wee bit tired. Hic.


----------



## Ferdinand (Jun 1, 2007)

Reed, would you really want that when you die, some people will cut you up and take you apart for the different organs they need?


----------



## reed (Jun 2, 2007)

sure, why not if it can save the life of somebody else. They are going to perform an autopsy anyway.


----------



## fryke (Jun 2, 2007)

Ferdinand: Would you, being dead and all that, really still care? I mean: Even *if* you believe in a surviving soul, doesn't that exact thought mean that you no longer need your body-parts? AFAIK, most religions nowadays don't believe in coming back to the same old body for standard-believers (only son of gods etc.). So in my opinion, ther are two simple options:

1.) You don't believe in an afterlife and this life here is the one we lead, after that, you're gone. Then you (gone) don't really need those organs anymore. You can still wrap things up and make a decent body for a funeral service, btw., which is a thing for those who live on.

2.) You do believe in a spiritual afterlife, where the soul or ghost or whatever is freed of those earthly boundaries. Which means you don't really need those organs anymore. You can still wrap things up and make a decent body for a funeral service, btw., which is a thing for those who live on.

bbloke: Sorry that I mention both theistic and atheistic "options" here. I don't mean to push the thread to that discussion. It just seems strange to me that those who believe in spiritual/religious things seem to cling to their dead bodies _more_ than those who think that this bodily existence is all we really have. Plus: I think it shouldn't even matter whether you believe or not - _unless_ you truly believe you still need your dead body after death.


----------



## bobw (Jun 2, 2007)

If the doctors and hospital want to split their fee with me, prior to my death, they can have anything.


----------



## chevy (Jun 2, 2007)

fryke,

the image that people have about their body after death it very complex. I was religious and I remember very complicated discussions with several members of different communities. Look at how people get rid of the dead bodies... there have been very different traditions in differents parts of the world, but most parts have a least one tradition. They usually do not just abandon the corpse where it dies. Some people burn it, some burry it, some place it on top of trees to offer it to birds, some eat it... sometimes they have different traditions for their friends and for their enemies...

Now we have more information and we learned scientific thinking, so we should be able to take reasonable decisions, but we still behave like very unreasonable beings... and I think it's often good to be unreasonable. Otherwise why would we spend time discussing this subject on a MacOS forum ?


----------



## pds (Jun 2, 2007)

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



> Estimated Liver Transplant Costs
> According to the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS), estimated charges for liver transplantation are:
> 
> Estimated First-Year Charge: $314,600
> ...



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

http://www.cpmc.org/advanced/liver/patients/topics/finance.html


----------



## pds (Jun 2, 2007)

Or - how about if I donate a liver, it goes onto a special list where it can only be used if all the attendant costs are also donated. Oh, and make it so Mickey Mantle or some other rich geezer can't circumvent the order of the list to take the first available liver. (does the resentment show?)


----------



## reed (Jun 2, 2007)

Keep the bones for anthropologists (like me) or burn the lot? Difficult question. However, I think spare parts are difficult to find so one should think of others and use what is possible. It all concerns one's values or religion. And then some.
  If somebody can save my daughter with a kidney transplant, for example, after a car accident. Why not. I'd do the same. 
  A friend of mine has given his body to science. Seeing he can't afford a grave site nor a funeral....all will be paid by the medical college he has left is body. His joke is..."they may find some interesting things but won't recuperate much worth saving."
  He's from Glasgow.


----------



## chevy (Jun 2, 2007)

pds said:


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



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


----------



## reed (Jun 4, 2007)

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 (Jun 4, 2007)

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 (Jun 5, 2007)

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 (Jun 5, 2007)

reed said:


> 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 (Jun 7, 2007)

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 (Jun 9, 2007)

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 (Jun 9, 2007)

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.


----------



## Rhisiart (Jun 10, 2007)

CincyJim said:


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


I'd welcome a brain transplant as long as you are not the donor.


----------



## Convert (Sep 2, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> Heaven forbid that anyone of us were to meet an timely death. But if the worst was to happen, our organs may allow others with terminal disease to live longer.
> 
> I am talking about presumed consent here (doctors will automatically remove your organs in the event of death, unless you carry a card to say you don't want this).
> 
> ...



That does sound better. The card could also contain information like whether or not the person is diabetic. It's handy to know this when you can't ask them, and of course, if Diabetics just carry cards, that doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't carry one isn't a diabetic.

Good idea.


----------



## chevy (Sep 2, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> I'd welcome a brain transplant as long as you are not the donor.



Don't worry, the brain is just the machine, not the ideas that it carries (a Mac can re-use PC hardware without losing its identity isn't it ?).


----------



## fryke (Sep 2, 2007)

Hm. I personally think that your thoughts and memories etc. _are_ stored in the brain, though, chevy.


----------



## chevy (Sep 2, 2007)

Same as some software is stored in RAM. But if you stop the power, you just get an empty RAM. I am convinced that if you stop irrigating the brain, all chemical/electrical potentials get corrupted and you just get an empty brain... even the addressing system needs to be rebuild.


----------



## reed (Oct 11, 2007)

Speaking of brains... has anyone seen one of the worst serial B films ever made in Hollywood (in the 50s)?

"They Saved Hitlers Brain"

 Talk about RAM shutdown. A riot.


----------



## CincyJim (Oct 12, 2007)

rhisiart said:


> I'd welcome a brain transplant as long as you are not the donor.



You need one, and I think ANY brain would be better than the one you use here.

What a dumb post you made.


----------



## CincyJim (Oct 12, 2007)

*Chevy*; the brain & its thoughts are inseparable. A brain without thoughts is a very poor doorstop.


----------



## bbloke (Oct 12, 2007)

Let's keep things friendly, CincyJim.  You're being rather abusive in this thread.


----------



## chevy (Oct 12, 2007)

CincyJim said:


> *Chevy*; the brain & its thoughts are inseparable. A brain without thoughts is a very poor doorstop.



I agree with 50% of what you say... you cannot take thoughts out of a brain. But I am not sure you can carry thoughts with a partial brain.


----------



## Giaguara (Oct 12, 2007)

No, thoughts and brains are separable. What about reincarnation? You don't keep the brain. You keep at least the karma. And some memories and thoughts...


----------



## Rhisiart (Oct 13, 2007)

Giaguara said:


> No, thoughts and brains are separable. What about reincarnation? You don't keep the brain. You keep at least the karma. And some memories and thoughts...


In my previous life I ran an Abacus using version 10.5.4.


----------



## chevy (Oct 13, 2007)

Giaguara said:


> No, thoughts and brains are separable. What about reincarnation? You don't keep the brain. You keep at least the karma. And some memories and thoughts...



*Should donating karma be compulsory ?* ... only for iTMS users ?


----------



## eric2006 (Oct 13, 2007)

chevy said:


> *Should donating karma be compulsory ?* ... only for iTMS users ?



Haven't you read the EULA?


----------



## chevy (Oct 13, 2007)

ELUA article 666: To evil Steve your Karma you shall donate. Good catch.


----------



## reed (Jan 9, 2008)

Last word. Spare parts.Yes or no? It depends on the garage, sir. Indeed.


----------

