[QUOTE=Gekkosan;34399260]I mean't like, some young healthy individual out of a family has an untimely death at the age of.. 25. Then the grievance process and all, and then they get a letter from hospital asking if they could (buy?) the dead ones organs[/QUOTE]
but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.
for example, say a family that have never been very wealthy receives news that their loving son has died in a car accident. now this family aren't overly religious, but it is their personal belief (and definitely the view of their son) that they would not want their organs to be donated; they wish to be buried/cremated 'whole'. but they're 3 months behind on rent and they're about to get kicked out of their home... so when a lovely doctor comes along and offers them x amount of money for their sons organs, although they don't really want to, it would seem illogical not to agree. so they've just changed their moral stance on organ donation purely for money.
i just don't think money should have anything to do with it. and besides, how do you put a price on organs? $1000 for a liver, $750 for each kidney, $2000 for a pair of lungs (but it gets knocked down to $1200 if you'd ever smoked)? i just can never see it working, and like i said before, i think offering money for organs is essentially bribing people to donate when it may well have been against their wishes beforehand.
Our body is our body. We can not be forced to give them away. If your organs are failing, I feel no remorse. Even if it wasn't your fault for your organ failure.
[B]Natural selection[/B].
[I]Also, I dont want my clean as fuck liver to go to some drunkard who destroyed his.[/I]
[QUOTE=McCarthy;34383107]As selfish and short sighted as this sounds, i want to be whole after death. Not parts of me here and there.[/QUOTE]
I dunno. Forgive me for waxing philosophical, but I kind of like the idea that, if anything should happen to me, part of me will live on, making someone's life better.
But then, I'm a donor, so I'm rather biased. I certainly respect your opinion.
[QUOTE=Autumn;34399466]but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.
for example, say a family that have never been very wealthy receives news that their loving son has died in a car accident. now this family aren't overly religious, but it is their personal belief (and definitely the view of their son) that they would not want their organs to be donated; they wish to be buried/cremated 'whole'. but they're 3 months behind on rent and they're about to get kicked out of their home... so when a lovely doctor comes along and offers them x amount of money for their sons organs, although they don't really want to, it would seem illogical not to agree. so they've just changed their moral stance on organ donation purely for money.
i just don't think money should have anything to do with it. and besides, how do you put a price on organs? $1000 for a liver, $750 for each kidney, $2000 for a pair of lungs (but it gets knocked down to $1200 if you'd ever smoked)? i just can never see it working, and like i said before, i think offering money for organs is essentially bribing people to donate when it may well have been against their wishes beforehand.[/QUOTE]
Lungs from a person that has smoked by default aren't applicable for transplant afaik.
you do know that smokers/drinkers/drug users are significantly down further down the transplant list than those who aren't?
it's not like if there are two 30 year olds; A's liver is failing because he's been a solid drinker since his youth, B's liver is failing because of some random complication
A has been on the transplant list for 8 months
B has been on the transplant list for 24 hours
if a usable liver becomes available, and they're both positive matches, the liver will go to B, because there is a risk that A might ruin this liver by drinking, and then he may well need another transplant. whereas B is much more likely to benefit from having it, and is much less likely to "ruin" it.
obviously there is much more to it than that, and that's a somewhat "perfect" scenario, but don't think that people who have organ failure due to their own decisions in life get the same priority as people who are afflicted for reasons beyond their control.
and i also think that just because you don't want your organ to go to somebody just so they can ruin it all over again is not a valid reason to avoid donating at all. you could potentially save several lives by donating, and you're not willing to do that just because you don't agree with the way somebody might choose to live their life?
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34400121]Lungs from a person that has smoked by default aren't applicable for transplant afaik.[/QUOTE]
i think you're probably right! i am far from a doctor :P
When I am dead you can take what you like.
Though anyone trying to get on a waiting list has to stop smoking and drinking, so I don't think B would get it over A in this case, A has been on there pretty damn long already.
A has been a solid drinker for many, many years
what's to say he won't start it up again once he's got his new swanky liver?
B is a much safer bet, in that respect
[QUOTE=Autumn;34400318]A has been a solid drinker for many, many years
what's to say he won't start it up again once he's got his new swanky liver?
B is a much safer bet, in that respect[/QUOTE]
George best eat your heart out.
[QUOTE=neutra;34400027]Our body is our body. We can not be forced to give them away. If your organs are failing, I feel no remorse. Even if it wasn't your fault for your organ failure.
[B]Natural selection[/B].
[I]Also, I dont want my clean as fuck liver to go to some drunkard who destroyed his.[/I][/QUOTE]
You're extremely offensive and you're ignorant to how natural selection works.
First off, natural selection really no longer applies to the human race as we have advanced medically to extend people's lives and have created things that go beyond our natural ability, removing us from the "circle of life". We do not benefit the earth in anyway or work ourselves into any cycle of life.
We merely consume and create for our own benefit (there are individuals who do care, but the majority live their lives for their own causes).
I am guessing you are not a varsity football player, or anyone with extreme physical attributes. If you are not, then take into consideration that natural selection would probably kill you off it still applied as the stronger humans would have no laws stopping them from beating you into a pulp.
So your argument was extremely narrow minded and I am sure if the above situation happened where some large man beat you so severely that you had internal bleeding and needed an organ transplant, you would be singing a different tune.
I am in need of an organ transplant and I have lived my life as healthy as possible. I have never hurt another human and would not hesitate to help another human in need.
Even with the need for an organ myself, I am on the organ donor list and if I do happen to die from complications, at least the rest of my body could help someone else in need. So I and other people are living our lives in pain enduring things that make up your nightmares and you sit there with some smug statement when you have no idea what you are talking about.
This is a debate thread and you obviously have a right to your opinion but at least fucking research the bullshit you spew from your mouth.
I was in the emergency room on my birthday and was diagnosed with the disease that ruined my organ. I had no health issues before then and the disease was hereditary from a distant relative.
That above statement was not to invoke pity but to throw out the idea that these things happen in an instant at anytime for any reason and one day it could happen to you, or a loved one you hold dear. Then watch as your whole life changes and you get to see your body or someone you love fall apart before your eyes and as you scream for help, watch some other person who used to be like you say they feel no remorse and walk away.
I hope you never have to endure what I have endured as I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but if it ever did happen I wouldn't mind seeing how quickly you would change your opinion.
Should not be up to the state what happens to your body when you die, it should be down to the individual and to some extent the immediate family, no one else regardless of what you think is right or wrong.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34400549]Should not be up to the state what happens to your body when you die, it should be down to the individual and to some extent the immediate family, no one else regardless of what you think is right or wrong.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree it should be voluntary, my response was to his ignorant and heartless reasoning behind it.
Pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that your organs are harvested when you're barely alive, rather than when you're [I]actually[/I] dead... So I wouldn't be too happy about that.
[QUOTE=1chains1;34400575]I completely agree it should be voluntary, my response was to his ignorant and heartless reasoning behind it.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't responding to you, more the people who seem to think it's perfectly okay for the government to dictate what you can and cannot do with your body, which is kind of ironic since I'm sure a lot of them support legalising drugs which pretty much revolves around the same idea.
[QUOTE=Autumn;34399466]but i think that if there was a financial benefit to donating organs, then they would be more likely to donate, regardless of what their stance was on organ donation beforehand, and i don't think it's fair to use money as a way to encourage people to let their relatives organs be harvested for profit.[/QUOTE]
Okay, no price for the organs, but for the co-operation?
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;34383084]Those who are deceased do not have legal rights, which should include the wild claim that they own their organs.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, what? You lost the argument right there. Your credibility vanishes instantly. Those who are dead do have rights. The bodies of dead belong to the families that they belong to. Mandating organ donating would relinquish the rights of family, and if you're religious, the right to establish and believe in religion. Humans are sacred, they come in a whole for a reason, and barring dismemberment, stay whole. If you want to be an organ donor, you SIGN UP for it yourself while living. Worst case, it's suggested at the time of you being declared dead (no brain function, heart stopped, O2 sats <90)
[QUOTE=evlbzltyr;34400668]Pretty sure I remember hearing somewhere that your organs are harvested when you're barely alive, rather than when you're [I]actually[/I] dead... So I wouldn't be too happy about that.[/QUOTE]
braindead =/= dead
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
if there is even the slightest, the smallest absolute chance that you could survive, they will not take your organs.
i think what you're thinking of is how they are sometimes required to keep the body on a ventilator/bypass so that the organs are still receiving oxygen and won't begin to fail before they're even out of this body.
but you are most definitely dead, even if your body is still being "kept alive"
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Gekkosan;34400745]Okay, no price for the organs, but for the co-operation?[/QUOTE]
then i think my point still stands; it's bribery and i do not think it is moral.
[QUOTE=1chains1;34400507]You're extremely offensive and you're ignorant to how natural selection works.
First off, natural selection really no longer applies to the human race as we have advanced medically to extend people's lives and have created things that go beyond our natural ability, removing us from the "circle of life". We do not benefit the earth in anyway or work ourselves into any cycle of life.
We merely consume and create for our own benefit (there are individuals who do care, but the majority live their lives for their own causes).
I am guessing you are not a varsity football player, or anyone with extreme physical attributes. If you are not, then take into consideration that natural selection would probably kill you off it still applied as the stronger humans would have no laws stopping them from beating you into a pulp.
So your argument was extremely narrow minded and I am sure if the above situation happened where some large man beat you so severely that you had internal bleeding and needed an organ transplant, you would be singing a different tune.
I am in need of an organ transplant and I have lived my life as healthy as possible. I have never hurt another human and would not hesitate to help another human in need.
Even with the need for an organ myself, I am on the organ donor list and if I do happen to die from complications, at least the rest of my body could help someone else in need. So I and other people are living our lives in pain enduring things that make up your nightmares and you sit there with some smug statement when you have no idea what you are talking about.
This is a debate thread and you obviously have a right to your opinion but at least fucking research the bullshit you spew from your mouth.
I was in the emergency room on my birthday and was diagnosed with the disease that ruined my organ. I had no health issues before then and the disease was hereditary from a distant relative.
That above statement was not to invoke pity but to throw out the idea that these things happen in an instant at anytime for any reason and one day it could happen to you, or a loved one you hold dear. Then watch as your whole life changes and you get to see your body or someone you love fall apart before your eyes and as you scream for help, watch some other person who used to be like you say they feel no remorse and walk away.
I hope you never have to endure what I have endured as I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but if it ever did happen I wouldn't mind seeing how quickly you would change your opinion.[/QUOTE]
As I am on a phone I don't have the time to create a formidable response. In fact though, in response, I am quite athletic and enjoy pursuing different activities. Yet I was at fault not to explain my story. My family line suffers from an intestinal disease that I too might be succebtable to. I'll pm you with the rest, as my next course is starting.
Though I do stand firm that I never said organ donation was bad, just not mine. Talk soon, all the best.
It makes sense to have to donate your organs once you are dead. If they're still in working order and you're dead, then why deny someone else the chance to live?
[QUOTE=Brute;34401107]I'm sorry, what? You lost the argument right there. Your credibility vanishes instantly. Those who are dead do have rights. The bodies of dead belong to the families that they belong to. Mandating organ donating would relinquish the rights of family, and if you're religious, the right to establish and believe in religion. Humans are sacred, they come in a whole for a reason, and barring dismemberment, stay whole. If you want to be an organ donor, you SIGN UP for it yourself while living. Worst case, it's suggested at the time of you being declared dead (no brain function, heart stopped, O2 sats <90)[/QUOTE]
They may have rights in actuality, but they shouldn't. Rights are for people with consciousness.
"the state" shouldn't assume property rights over your body; it should return to its natural state of everyone being at liberty to use it but that's a whole different story that isn't really suited to this thread
It should be encouraged, but not forced or mandatory. It's your choice what you do with your body. It may also conflict with religons.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;34398840]And give up my lungs to a smoker so he can smoke some more. Ah, no thanks.[/QUOTE]
Or to a cancer patient desperate for more time.
[QUOTE=Lone_Star94;34398840]And give up my lungs to a smoker so he can smoke some more. Ah, no thanks.[/QUOTE]
because smokers are the only people who need organ transplants.
It would be helpful for those who need healthy organs, but I don't think we can forcibly harvest organs from corpses without their consent.
[QUOTE=Autumn;34401114]braindead =/= dead
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
if there is even the slightest, the smallest absolute chance that you could survive, they will not take your organs.
i think what you're thinking of is how they are sometimes required to keep the body on a ventilator/bypass so that the organs are still receiving oxygen and won't begin to fail before they're even out of this body.
but you are most definitely dead, even if your body is still being "kept alive"
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
then i think my point still stands; it's bribery and i do not think it is moral.[/QUOTE]
brain death = dead. Your brain is what controls your organs, if you're brain dead, your organs will begin to fail too.
yeah my bad. i was more trying to explain to the guy who thinks that you're not actually dead when they take your organs that you are dead. they just have to keep manually manually keep pumping the blood through your body and oxygen into your lungs since your brain is no longer able to do so.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
7. How do they know you are really dead?
Organs are only removed for transplantation after a person has died. Death is confirmed by a doctor or doctors who are entirely independent of the transplant team. Death is confirmed in exactly the same way for people who donate organs as for those who do not.
Most organ donors are patients who die as a result of a brain haemorrhage, severe head injury, or stroke and who are on a ventilator in a hospital intensive care unit. In these circumstances, death is diagnosed by brain stem tests. There are very clear and strict standards and procedures for doing these tests and they are always performed by two experienced doctors.
The ventilator provides oxygen which keeps the heart beating and blood circulating after death. These donors are called heartbeating donors. Organs such as hearts, which deteriorate very quickly without an oxygen supply, are usually only donated by a heartbeating donor.
Patients who die in hospital but are not on a ventilator can, in some circumstances, donate their kidneys, and in certain circumstances, other organs. They are called non-heartbeating donors.
Both heartbeating and non-heartbeating donors can donate their corneas and other tissue.
8. Can they keep you alive with machines?
No. The patient is dead. A ventilator keeps the body supplied with oxygen and this means the heart will continue to beat and circulate blood. This preserves the organs so they can be donated for transplant. When the ventilator is turned off the heart will stop beating within a few minutes.
there we go
[url]http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/questions/answers/answers_3.jsp#q7[/url]
[QUOTE=Brute;34401107]I'm sorry, what? You lost the argument right there. Your credibility vanishes instantly. [/QUOTE]
Your opinion. If you want to claim consensus I suggest a vote.
[QUOTE]Those who are dead do have rights. The bodies of dead belong to the families that they belong to. Mandating organ donating would relinquish the rights of family, and if you're religious, the right to establish and believe in religion. [/QUOTE]
Those are the rights of the family, not the deceased. Maybe we should ask them?
Also, please clarify this whole argument. I really don't see how you draw the conclusion that mandatory organ donation relinquishes the right of family and religion.
[QUOTE]Humans are sacred, they come in a whole for a reason, and barring dismemberment, stay whole.[/QUOTE]
Oh? Just what reason is that?
I have the solution: Cremation. None of you fools are getting MY organs.
[QUOTE=Rhinovirus;34383264]Evil? How is the potential to enrich many lives after death evil in any sense of the word? And where lies the trickery? Are you suggesting their is exist no moral obligation to help one's fellow man, which harvesting of organs would provide for?[/QUOTE]
Forced altruism isn't exactly altruism you know.
[editline]26th January 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scar;34392860]I agree, I think their wills should be ignored if it would allow us to help the living
Living dudes > Dead dudes[/QUOTE]
Why should we stop at mere organ harvesting? Why not grind the bones into supplements and industrial products? Skin them and convert their hides into leather for boots and wallets? Pulp whatever remains into fertilizer? Hell if they're healthy and lack any blood-borne/nervous disorders we can filet them and sell it as food to the hungry (a real-world Soylent Green in this case.)
People have a right to not having their corpses "harvested" if you will, after death.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
