Organ Donation
-
You don't consider it harm that people waiting for organs might die when they don't receive a transplant? Increasing the organ influx to me clearly reduces their chances of harm.
This presumes a number of things, the first of which is that there are nearby viable matches. Depending on the organ needed and the disease the patient is sufering, the degree of matching can be very complicated (dozens of comparison points). Beyond that, there are a dozens of other factors that need to be considered.
On the surface, it seems that switching the organ donor default would increase the available pool. But does it? Not being a statistician, I can't answer that. Is it even worthwhile? In either case, the next of kin would need to be consulted anyway, so what would really change?
-
Sure, if you're some kind of fascist who believes other peoples' bodies don't belong to them.
I was going for facetious more than fascist, but to respond to your comment: Dead people own nothing.
-
Dead people own nothing
The hell you say. I have a deadman switch rigged to small thermite packs distributed throughout my body. Good luck getting any of my organs when I am done with them!
-
I refuse to give them something
You seem to be confused about the "them" in this sentence. You're not giving your organs to the doctors, theirs are working perfectly fine (presumably). You're giving them (really, you're just making your wishes clear to your family who actually get to make the decision) to some poor sucker who's probably going to die without them.
So, if you want to be a massive dick and deny life to somebody just to spite rich doctors, you're doing the right thing.
-
-
What about the doctors who are charging an arm and a leg to some poor sucker who's probably going to die without them. Why do they get a free pass?
Oh sure, when doctors charge money for their valuable services they deserve to be paid, but I'm a massive dick if I think my organs are valuable enough to ought to be paid for as well?
-
Really, letting people sell their organs can't be any worse than letting them sign up for their family to receive a fairly large payout if anything unfortunate should happen to befall them. They die, their family stands to profit from it. What's the difference?
-
What about the doctors who are charging an arm and a leg to some poor sucker who's probably going to die without them. Why do they get a free pass?
What third-world shithole are you living in? In civilised countries people receive life-saving medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
I'm a massive dick if I think my organs are valuable enough to ought to be paid for as well?
Yes, you're being a massive dick for acting out of spite. You're sitting on a large pile of food that's going to be rotten in a few hours, telling the starving people around you with no food to continue dying because they can't pay you, even though you can't eat all the food yourself because you're dead.
And your objection to feeding starving people with the food that's otherwise shortly going to be rotten is that the guy who carries your food to the starving people is going to be paid (sometimes a lot) to do so while you will not be paid because you're dead.
In the western world neither you nor your estate are ever going to be paid (legally) for your organs. It's an awful idea and everybody knows it. So your decision is: Save a life at no cost to you and somebody else gets paid, or don't save the life, somebody dies, nobody gets paid. The outcome for you is identical, however the other two people involved do a lot better with one of those options.
-
-
nearby viable matches
I don't question that but if the possible pool is increased, chances of finding a possible match should increase.Not being a statistician
That is what science is for ... isn't it ? One of the first results on Google.
After Belgium passed
presumed consent legislation in 1986,
its donation rates also rose dramatically
(Michielsen, 1996). A frequently cited
example is that of two similar transplant
centers in Belgium – one in Leuven and
one in Antwerp. Leuven switched to
presumed consent with the passage of
the law and in three years, its donation
rate climbed from 15 to 40 donors per
million, while Antwerp did not change
its policy and only maintained previous
levels (Kennedy et al., 1998). In Austria,
presumed consent became law in 1982,
and by 1990, the rates of donation had
quadrupled, to the point where the number
of patients awaiting kidneys nearly
equaled the number of kidney transplants
performed (Gnant et al., 1991).And thank you Discourse for blanking out Belgium! What idiot thought of that ...
-
>15 to 40 donors per million
15 to 40 donors per million what? Million deaths? That's still a tiny fraction of potential donors. Million inhabitants? Million patients? Those statistics don't convey any useful information if they don't specify what they are actually measuring.
@Luhmann said:What idiot thought of that ...
-
15 to 40 donors per million what?
Normally those rates are per million population. Quick glance at the linked paper makes and yep, using population where more specified (not quoted by @Luhmann).
-
(not quoted by @Luhmann)
Mea Culpa for not correctly quoting the source I provided
-
Larry Niven explored the idea of the compulsory donation of organs in one of his "universes". The "ready" availability of organs created the demand for transplants for the sake of longevity and replacement due to abuse; rather than that of saving lives. This, eventually, caused demand (from the wealthy) to outpace the supply. People were living longer (and who would want an old heart?), death by accident was reducing as thing were becoming safer.
The solution: To "harvest" organs from executed criminals. Which worked for a while, but people were becoming less criminally minded.
The solution; To "increase" the number of "capital" offences, to the point where (IIRC) your third traffic violation qualified.
Oh, yeah. The "government" definitely owned your physical body, and if to tried to damage it......well, that was a Capital Offence.
-
sell their organs on a free market
I hear money is really useful to dead people
Does some particular action (or inaction) harm (or could cause imminent harm to) another person's life, liberty or property?
Harvesting my organs when I'm dead does none of those things. Mainly because I'm dead and therefore own no propertyThe unfortunate part there, is that it sets a precedent that the government can get away with anything, as long as "nobody cares." That then turns into as long as nobody who matters, cares.
-
Let's worry about those problems when my phone can transform into a hoover board to get around while I take a vacation on Mars. Until then I propose we focus on actual problems instead.
-
Thin end of the wedge, thin end of the wedge.
One of the perceived functions of science fiction is to explore the possible effects of "stuff" on future society. Some people would argue, for instance, that H G Well's War of the Worlds was inspired by recent discoveries concerning micro biology.
Spoiler Alert
Top Last Mortal Thoughts
<spoiler>- Ooh, shiny...
- Oh shit...
- I did not think that this would happen...
Why is the spoiler tag not working, I have tried the obvious
-
I have tried the obvious
YMBNH
Probably the empty lines. Discourse hates empty lines, except in nested quotes with code, where it insists on them
-
In civilised countries people receive life-saving medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
The doctor still gets paid amirite? Let the insurance company pay amiright? Okay fine, I'm just saying that my family deserves a part of that payout, just as much as the doctor does.
Yes, you're being a massive dick for acting out of spite. You're sitting on a large pile of food that's going to be rotten in a few hours, telling the starving people around you with no food to continue dying because they can't pay you, even though you can't eat all the food yourself because you're dead.
I'm not acting out of spite. You're telling me that on the one hand my organs are priceless to someone and on the other hand they're worthless and I should give them away. You can't have it both ways. Pick one.
In the western world neither you nor your estate are ever going to be paid (legally) for your organs. It's an awful idea and everybody knows it.
It's no worse than life insurance.
Mainly because I'm dead and therefore own no property
When I'm dead my family should own my remains, and they deserve to be compensated if there's any intrinsic value left in it.
-
You're telling me that on the one hand my organs are priceless to someone and on the other hand they're worthless and I should give them away. You can't have it both ways. Pick one
What? He's saying they're worthless shortly after death if they're not used, and that you have no use for them once you've died.
The doctor still gets paid amirite?
No more than if they didn't do that particular operation
Surgeon | Explore careers | National Careers Service
Surgeons carry out operations and medical procedures on patients.
Doctors in training are paid extra if they work more than 40 hours or they work outside the hours of 7am to 7pm, Monday to Friday. This is usually between 20% and 50% of the basic salary.
Doctors in the specialty doctor grade (which would include surgeons) earn between £37,176 and £69,325.
Consultant surgeons can earn a basic salary of between £75,249 and £101,451 per year, dependent on length of service.
-
Doctors in the specialty doctor grade (which would include surgeons) earn between £37,176 and £69,325.
....
translated to USD that's roughly $55.500 to $103,500 USD
.... I make more than the baseline salary of speciatly grade doctors in the UK?
things really are different over there.
-
You're telling me that on the one hand my organs are priceless to someone and on the other hand they're worthless and I should give them away.
Do you pay your girlfriend after sex? Because after all there is a common market price for those services ...
-
emphasized textThis may be of interest
Do London underground drivers earn more and work less than NHS doctors?
This Facebook photo protesting the recent London underground (Tube) strikes claims that London underground drivers earn more money and have less working hours than National Health Service (NHS) do...
Forgive any typos I just hit the stupid composer inwdow bog wtf
-
common market
Bloody EU, what are they going to regulate next? We have milk lakes and butter mountains, what will they call this? [spoiler]Pussy Ravines?[/spoiler]
-
-
What? He's saying they're worthless shortly after death if they're not used, and that you have no use for them once you've died.
Ah the whole "it'll be worthless shortly, you should give it to me for free" scam. Go try that at your local grocery and see if they'll allow you to cart away a free load of their fresh meats and produce.
If something has value NOW, then someone should be willing to pay for it.
Do you pay your girlfriend after sex? Because after all there is a common market price for those services ...
Are you saying all women are whores, or just that all whores are women?
Even if I was worried about a common market price we'd have to figure out what our respective rates were and someone would only have to pay the difference.
Anyway if she needed one of my (other) organs I wouldn't expect her to pay for that either.
Oblig:
-
-
Why is the spoiler tag not working, I have tried the obvious
Spoiler is bbcode, not HTML
[spoiler]This works.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]This works.[/spoiler]<spoiler>This does not.</spoiler>
<spoiler>This does not.</spoiler>.Also:
Probably the empty lines.
-
Larry Niven explored the idea of the compulsory donation of organs in one of his "universes".
I remember that story, but as usual, not the name.en.wikipedia.org
Slippery slope
Yeah, that story was all about exploring what might be at the bottom of the slope.
-
my phone can transform into a hoover board
Would it be thin enough to vacuum the dog hair under the sofa?
-
I remember that story, but as usual, not the name.
That was part of the ARM universe, IIRC. Which I think he later tried to combine with the Ringworld universe, but, whatever, ARM was better.
They were secret agents with various psychic powers (the main dude had a telekinetic arm; one chick on the team could sense if you were in danger if you fucked her, this book was written in the 70s.) They dealt with super-science crimes. I remember one episode was about a field that like made everything inside it go super-fast and the murder weapon was a flashlight. (The field compressed all the photons so it was like a laser.)
They mention a lot that more and more crimes get the death penalty as a way of supplying organs.
-
this book was written in the 70s
I read a lot of SF in the 70s; it was about all I read. If somebody were to mention just about any story from that era, I'd probably recognize it, but have no clue as to the title nor, in most cases, the author.
They mention a lot that more and more crimes get the death penalty as a way of supplying organs.
IIRC, jaywalking eventually became a capital offense.
-
Me too, but I think I would remember the author and mabey the title.
what a wasted gift
-
I read a lot of SF in the 70s;
My joke, which I think you missed, is that having a character who can sense you're in danger, but only if you fuck her, is about the most 70s thing that has ever happened. The only way it could be more 70s is if a dolphin were somehow involved.
-
The only way it could be more 70s is if a dolphin were somehow involved.
Like if the requirement was watching her and the dolphin instead?
-
Like if the requirement was watching her and the dolphin instead?
Or, like, if the dolphin and her had to take peyote and then the you fucked it and then it somehow became Jesus. Or a caveman lava monster, like in Altered States.
Then she could sense danger.
Did you know they made a movie out of Jonathan Livingston Seagull? Did you know it's not a cartoon, but actually filmed at a garbage dump with real garbage-covered seagulls?
-
In civilised countries people receive life-saving medical treatment regardless of their ability to pay.
Not when they can't get a replacement organ because there aren't enough available.
-
the main dude had a telekinetic arm
Gill The Arm, of ARM, it could just about lift a pack of cigarettes. Or stop a beating heart, but you had to be close - within arm's reach.
I should be taken out and shot for causing an offence with puns
-
Or stop a beating heart, but you had to be close - within arm's reach.
IIRC he just had to think it was in arm's reach-- he could "reach into" TVs showing security camera footage, for example.
But yeah. The premise is goofy as shit, but the stories were remarkably good.
-
Didn't get to read many stories from that 'verse, I collected (mostly) short story anthologies, rather than the series books. But yeah, it was a gimmick to hang the plot (twist) on
-
-
jaywalking eventually became a capital offense.
Yes, that was the twist of a particular short story, The Jigsaw Man.
-
There are very good reasons for not compensating heirs for the organs of deceased relatives. The primary one is to help discourage the stupider and less-than-scrupulous from bumping off their nearest and dearest for cash.
Someone does that, and they're sent up for felony murder (for starters), just like they would for putting out a hit (or doing the deed themselves) for any other reason. That should be a pretty damn good enough deterrent.
-
I just googled it, and it was actually for speeding "no less than ten times, once by as much as fifteen miles an hour", and for running 6 red lights.
-
-
Exactly, like "accidentally" running into someone with your car.
-
If it's actually an accident it's not murder, but it's probably still a felony.
-
Some people have run into or over other people, but didn't even get charged for it although the victim died. A quick Web search reveals a couple:
No charges for judge who hit and killed pedestrian
Police say the pedestrian hit and killed by a judge was high on drugs and not in crosswalk at the time of the accident.
-
We have murder - You interned to kill, and manslaughter. Which can be involuntary eg Car crash (and sometimes not even the); negligent eg allowing your tenant to die fro carbon monoxide poisoning; corporate eg death through bad work practises ect.
I guess Murder would Translate to felony, not sure how manslaughter would translate. But you have 1st, 2nd and 3rd Degree murder, so I guess that covers it.
-
We have murder - You interned to kill, and manslaughter.
You've got the distinction wrong. Murder is not only intentional, but also premeditated. Manslaughter may or may not be voluntary, but it is generally distinguished from murder by being an unplanned act.
Of course, these are gross-oversimplifications that get muddied when applied to legal matters, but as basic guidelines go, they work pretty well.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/homicide-murder-manslaughter-32637-2.html
Altruism - Wikipedia
