Organ Donation
-
other organs (e.g., liver, heart) are only ever taken post mortem
Incorrect. Well, partially.
There is a procedure occasionally referred to as a partial liver transplant, or a living-donor liver transplant[1]. In this procedure, a living donor is matched to the person in need of a new liver. A portion of the donor's liver is removed and replaces the recipient's diseased liver. After a successful transplant, both the donor's liver and the recipient's (new) liver grow to full size within weeks.
Benefits of living-donor liver transplants include:
- Generally shorter wait times for a viable match.
- Adults are viable donors for pediatric recipients.
- Life expectancy may be better with a living-donor transplant than with a traditional transplant.
-
partial liver transplant
TIL. And no, I don't think I really want to know too much more.
-
WATCH IT. You will not be sorry.
Well, I mean, you might stay up til 2 AM and then get in a car accident tomorrow because you drove poorly from being tired. Don't do that.
Seriously. For me to actively recommend a movie and say it's good, is something. I hate most of the drek Hollywood puts out. This isn't drek.
Do you by any chance remember which movie that was? The Youtube links are dead, the copyright notices refer to "Action movie 2014 - Predes…", so that's not really helpful.
Googling for the text you quoted here brings up "All you zombies", a short story by Heinlein, but no movies. Searching Youtube for "All you zombies" gives me a bunch of music videos.
-
Do you by any chance remember which movie that was?
Predestination, a film based on Heinlein's short story "All You Zombies"
-
a film based on Heinlein's short story "All You Zombies"
Which is why googling the quote brought up the story.
-
Haven't given up on this; just been busy. My response to @boomzilla and @FrostCat
@Washington Post said:
“The recovery rate for deceased donors in the United States is actually better than that of European nations with presumed consent laws. The United States rigorously follows individual donor registrations whereas presumed consent countries actually defer to family objections.”
This is interesting. I absolutely disagree that next of kin should be able to override the wishes of the deceased donor and feel strongly that anywhere that this is the case should be changed. (I have a problem in general with the contesting of legally drawn up, sound state of mind wills but that's for another day.) I feel the wishes of the deceased person should be paramount.
(As an aside, I'd be interested in seeing what an "opt out, no next-of-kin override" system would do the numbers of donations. Does anyone know if there's a place with this model?)
Re: Financial compensation for donors. I guess my main difficulty with this is that I just can't understand the mentality of people preferring to be buried/cremated with (or at least not being prepared to donate) their organs unless they get financial compensation. The biggest block I have to financial compensation/incentives to organ donation - if people don't act altruistically when they are dead, where ticking a box could save someone's life, then when will they? The donation rates imply that I am in a minority when I feel this way but I don't think I am wrong. (This may be a definition of insanity...)
I don't think that financial compensation is The Right Way but seemingly it would be effective and save lives. Short of changing how the majority of people feel about donation then maybe it's the only way.
I do think that organ donation is different to surrogacy and blood donation.
I can see why the number of altruistic surrogate pregnancies would be virtually nil. Pregnancy has a huge impact on someone's life, not just for the 9 months when they are carrying the baby but afterwards. No-one could be expected to do this altruistically. This is different to organ donation as the impact to you when you are dead, I would argue, is zero.
I don't see why blood donation should not be entirely altruistic. The impact to you, the donor, is very minor... There's nothing permanent about giving a pint of blood. It doesn't take long* and doesn't really hurt. Studies have suggested that paying for blood does tend to give you the worst sort of blood so this would appear to be a case where The Right Thing is also The Best Thing.
http://www.who.int/bloodsafety/voluntary_donation/en/
*Everywhere I've worked has given free time off to give blood.
TL/DR: I'm right, everyone else is wrong but my way doesn't seem to work
-
I'm right, everyone else is wrong but my way doesn't seem to work
The opposite of "if it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid" is "if i'm right, but my way doesn't work, I'm not right."
-
I knew it was TL and you DR
-
I knew it was TL and you DR
Actually I did read most of it.
If the state can just declare it owns your body when you're done with it--and make no mistake, that's what opt-out is in this case--then there's no real difference between that and it saying it owns your property when you're done with it.
-
If the state can just declare it owns your body when you're done with it--and make no mistake, that's what opt-out is in this case--then there's no real difference between that and it saying it owns your property when you're done with it.
I like a slippery slope fallacy as much as the next person so I endorse your statement.
What do you think the "The State" would be doing with an "opt out" person's dead body outside of surgically removing organs and giving it back to the mortuary? Removing the organs that are eligible for donation seems to me to be a long way from declaring ownership of your corpse. Let alone your house.
-
What do you think the "The State" would be doing with an "opt out" person's dead body outside of surgically removing organs and giving it back to the mortuary?
I don't know. Medical experimentation? Soylent green? Creating a zombie army? YOU DON'T KNOW, MAN!
Removing the organs that are eligible for donation seems to me to be a long way from declaring ownership of your corpse.
Someone helping themselves to your body parts is claiming ownership. If you don't understand this, I invite you to try taking something, whether it be a sweater or a kidney, from someone, and observing what happens next.
-
Someone helping themselves to your body parts is claiming ownership.
Yes, of those specified body parts. For the specified reason. Which, in opt out, you have consented to by virtue of failing to opt out.
I think it's a mistake to assume that "they" will get ownership of your body, in perpetuity, to do what "they" will with it. In countries that have "opt out" is there an issue with the bodies being used for purposes other than organ donorship?
If you don't understand this, I invite you to try taking something, whether it be a sweater or a kidney, from someone, and observing what happens next.
Different thing is different. You don't say?
-
-
Good idea: Neural network handwriting.
I like a slippery slope fallacy as much as the next person so I endorse your statement.
Okay, I lol'd...
-
Sorry, @darkmatter, for sparsely quoting the article.
so either you still didn't get the meaning of the rant i did, despite claiming that you knew what I meant, or you are just trying to troll me into replying in topics I don't normally bother to look at. not sure which.
also, insert chicken scratch here.
-
And then there were three:
ObTheEvilIdeasThreadIs
-
I can see why the number of altruistic surrogate pregnancies would be virtually nil. Pregnancy has a huge impact on someone's life, not just for the 9 months when they are carrying the baby but afterwards. No-one could be expected to do this altruistically. This is different to organ donation as the impact to you when you are dead, I would argue, is zero.
A lot of the arguments for compensation for donation revolves around kidneys, which often come from live donors. As discussed, livers can also be donated while living. I guess bone marrow, too. Not sure how many other things like that would apply, but just kidneys would be huge.
-
-
so either you still didn't get the meaning of the rant i did,
Correct, your previous objection didn't make sense.
-
-
"Evenuiunke" is my favorite word.
-
Not sure how many other things like that would apply, but just kidneys would be huge.
Anything that regrows. If rejection issues can be dealt with, you can farm skin by inserting a balloon under it and gradually filling it with water, causing the skin to stretch. It takes months, but that's how they deal with, for example, separating Siamese twins.
-
A lot of the arguments for compensation for donation revolves around kidneys, which often come from live donors.
I'd put live kidney donation in the same category as surrogacy: I would not expect anyone to do this altruistically. For a close family member, perhaps, but not for anyone else.
My discussion was around the donation of organs from people who have died.
Coincidentally[1], there was a bit about organ donation on "The Weekly With Charlie Pickering" this week which I thought was very good. One thing he mentioned was that Spain leads the way on organ donation rates by focussing on the families of the deceased in order to translate the 50-60% of people who, when surveyed, are in favour of organs into actual transplanted organs.
How Spain Became the World Leader in Organ Donations
The man who broke records within a health service hampered by austerity chalks up his victory to 'organisation'.
[1]Or happenstantially if you'd prefer
-
families of the deceased
"We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but maybe you'd like to let us cut some bits out of him and give them to someone else?"
as I am not actually opposed to organ donation as such.
-
"We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but maybe you'd like to let us cut some bits out of him and give them to someone else?"
Exactly, that's the whole point you're missing and Spain is leading the way by not doing that.
No-one is saying that losing someone close to you is easy and not traumatic. But the point is there are people who, when alive, expressed a wish to be organ donors and those wishes are not being honoured by their surviving relatives. Spain sees that as a situation that can be improved by changing the way people are asked.
Do you not see that as an issue worth trying to solve?
Also, what do you suppose happens in other situations involving the families of the recently deceased?
Undertaker: "We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but maybe you'd like to look through this catalogue and choose a box to stuff him in?"
Florist: "We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but was the old guy more of a rose or carnation person?"
Manager Of Reception Hall Where Wake Will Be Held: "We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but could you let me know how many sandwiches you need?"
I was/am interested in having a sensible discussion about this as (unlike many people in this life) I am someone whose attitudes are open to change. As such I welcome hearing reasoned arguments from people whose views differ from mine.
-
Exactly, that's the whole point you're missing
I don't know why you didn't get from my sarcasm that I'm not missing your point.
-
Also, what do you suppose happens in other situations involving the families of the recently deceased?
I hope you can see how all three of those examples are fundamentally different from asking to take a piece out of old Dad.
-
Do you not see that as an issue worth trying to solve?
It doesn't seem to be a problem to begin with in the US. But I guess Europeans gotta Europe.
-
I don't know why you didn't get from my sarcasm that I'm not missing your point.
If you're not missing it perhaps you'd like to address it? The point being...
No-one is saying that losing someone close to you is easy and not traumatic. But the point is there are people who, when alive, expressed a wish to be organ donors and those wishes are not being honoured by their surviving relatives. Spain sees that as a situation that can be improved by changing the way people are asked.
Do you not see that as an issue worth trying to solve?
I hope you can see how all three of those examples are fundamentally different from asking to take a piece out of old Dad.
I hope you can see that they are three examples demonstrating that it matters how you ask the question.
-
It doesn't seem to be a problem to begin with in the US. But I guess Europeans gotta Europe.
Your definition of "no problem" differs from mine.
-
I hope you can see that they are three examples demonstrating that it matters how you ask the question.
Well, yes, but now you appear to be missing my point.
I don't have any issue with asking a donor's family, although, having read the article, I didn't see anywhere they discussed WHAT the change was, just that they DID change how they ask. ("they focus on donation, whereas others focus on distribution." What the heck does that mean?)
I thought I had made this clear in the past: I object to presumed-consent laws, mainly because I think it denies people agency. Generally I am opposed to things that deny people agency.
-
Manager Of Reception Hall Where Wake Will Be Held: "We know that you're having a terrible time, what with Dad having corked it and all, but could you let me know how many sandwiches you need?"
"Also, are you the party that booked the stripper and the bouncy castle?"
-
"Also, are you the party that booked the stripper and the bouncy castle?"
Actually, it was a castle and a bouncy stripper
Filed under: It's what he would've wanted
-
Your definition of "no problem" differs from mine.
I wasn't saying that we don't have a shortage of organs. Just that I believe the law in the US respects the choice made by the donor. I think all of my other posts show that I'm interested in improving organ transplants.
-
Honestly, as far as I understand things is the UK, (I don't), that seems to be underpaying them by a good bit, but I feel like it is a lot more reasonable than what we do in the United States. Maybe if we didn't make them pay $400k in schooling
-
Maybe if we didn't make them pay $400k in schooling
Our higher education bubble distorts a lot of things.
-
How I read this:
@FrostCat said:you can farm skin by inserting a baboon under it and gradually filling it with water,
E_NEED_MORE_CAFFEINE
-
How you read it would still--technically--work, for some definition of "work", though.
-
My train of thought went something like this: Baboons; skin grafts for humans. They're primates and reasonably closely related; it might work. Inserting a baboon under it. Huh? Grafting the skin onto the baboon? Filling it with water. WAT?!? Read it again.
![http://i.imgur.com/6xuTmnV.png[/img]](http://i.imgur.com/6xuTmnV.png%5B/img%5D){kind=link}