Organ Donation
-
Some people have run into or over other people, but didn't even get charged for it although the victim died.
That seems reasonable to me. Woman gets hopped up on coke and starts be-bopping around in the middle of the road in rush-hour traffic? Doesn't seem like justice to go after the drivers.
Remember, murder is an illegal killing and typically requires intent. Not being able to avoid someone who jumped out in front of your car kind of fails that test.
-
I guess Murder would Translate to felony, not sure how manslaughter would translate.
Traditionally, a felony was a crime that required more than a year's time in prison.
Having said that, manslaughter is generally a killing that didn't have premeditated malice, or one that had some degree of exculpatory situation.
And then there are killings that aren't actually criminal.
-
I think I said that.
There are times when you kill someone with intent, but it is not premeditated. I.e. in a fight.
The defence will try for manslaughter - on various grounds. If you stop to pick up a weapon you are on the path of premeditated - same goes with going into a fight with a weapon. Push somebody over and they crack there head open, you might get away with it.
Also, and I think it is similar over there: If you are apart of a gang that is involved with a death (murder), you will also be charged with murder even if all you did was stand and watch.
Lastly, and i don't know if it still applies, if you assault somebody and they die within a year from injuries sustained in that assault, you could also be done for murder.
Oh, yeah, I forgot (in my previous post) - death by misadventure :).
-
a felony was a crime that required more than a year's time in prison.
Ahh. Here we have Summary Offences that can be tried by magistrates and they are currently limited to a maximum of a six month custodial sentence. Then you have Indictable Offences (often referred to as "serious"), that are tried in the Crown Court with sentencing powers according the appropriate Act / Tariff.
-
-
Some people have run into or over other people, but didn't even get charged for it although the victim died.
Murder != manslaughter.
-
I think I said that.
You my want to re-read your post, cause you certainly didn't.
The defence will try for manslaughter - on various grounds. If you stop to pick up a weapon you are on the path of premeditated - same goes with going into a fight with a weapon.
Using a weapon isn't always a push for "premeditation" (at least not here in the US). That part swings on whether or not there was some sort of incitement that would cause a reasonable person to react in rage.
US law defines premeditation as planning and forethought. Reacting in rage to pick up a weapon and use it does not demonstrate either. Sometimes the prosecution will charge someone with second degree murder is they have a case that they reacted significantly more severely than a reasonable person would.
-
The doctor still gets paid amirite?
I gotta say I'm pretty ignorant about how often or how much doctors get paid for these kinds of operations, and how often they happen in a privately funded vs publicly funded context in places where there is such a difference. I will assume that yes, they get paid, and that yes, they get paid what you and I would consider a lot of money, commensurate with their training and expertise.
But you're not paying them, so it's none of your business.
Let the
insurance companytaxpayers pay amiright?I told you, I live in a civilised country.
my family deserves a part of that payout, just as much as the doctor does.
Deserves on what basis? What work did you or your family do? What capital did you or your family invest? Remember that it's illegal to trade human organs.
You're awfully entitled for a dead guy.
I'm not acting out of spite.
Seems like spite to me, as I said, both options result in the same outcome for you and your family. You're just dirty that the expert work (transplanting organs) can be paid for but the supply of organs cannot.
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.
They are both of those things. I can have it both ways. They are worthless to you because you're dead. They're worthless to your family because theirs are already working and it's illegal to sell them. They will be worthless to everybody very soon. They can mean life to another which seems pretty important to me.
-
Deserves on what basis?
Deserves on the basis that they posses something of great value to someone and which is in high demand.
Remember that it's illegal to trade human organs.
They are worthless to you because you're dead. They're worthless to your family because theirs are already working and it's illegal to sell them.
If it wasn't illegal they wouldn't be worthless. It shouldn't be illegal, therefore I do not accept your argument.
They can mean life to another which seems pretty important to me.
If they are so fucking important enough so that the doctor deserves to be paid, I just as much should have my surviving family compensated fairly if someone else profits from my remains.
-
my family deserves a part of that payout, just as much as the doctor does.
Deserves on what basis? What work did you or your family do? What capital did you or your family invest? Remember that it's illegal to trade human organs.
My family and I spent the last fifty-six years growing those organs, paying for all the food and upkeep used to get them and keep them in the condition they're in now that the government/medical establishments wants them. I'd say they're entitled to at least some fraction of that expense back.
-
You're awfully entitled for a dead guy.
Says the guy who's awfully free with other peoples' bodies.
-
My family and I spent the last fifty-six years growing those organs, paying for all the food and upkeep used to get them and keep them in the condition they're in now that the government/medical establishments wants them. I'd say they're entitled to at least some fraction of that expense back.
Deserves on the basis that they posses something of great value to someone and which is in high demand.
I had assumed that organ donation was so obviously A Good Thing that the only people who would argue against it would do so on religious grounds. I didn't expect anyone to seriously argue that they'd rather people die than donate their organs for free.
How do you feel about blood donation?
Says the guy who's awfully free with other peoples' bodies.
The bottom line with opt-in or opt-out is that it does not give any freedom whatsoever to other people's bodies; it merely makes your wishes known to your next of kin. Your next of kin would still get to choose whether to donate or not.
How do you think opt in or opt out affects you and your family?
-
How do you think opt in or opt out affects you and your family?
I already know, because my next several next-of-kin are aware of my feelings, not to mention promises that have been made.
-
@RTapeLoadingError said:
How do you think opt in or opt out affects you and your family?
I already know, because my next several next-of-kin are aware of my feelings, not to mention promises that have been made.
Then why do you care about having the default to be opt in?
If someone wants to donate parts of their body to others after they die, I am perfectly OK with that. Turning it around so you have to say "no, don't assume it's fine to hack bits off of my corpse" is a different matter.
It would seem that the people who feel strongly about it would make their feelings known either way.
-
How do you feel about blood donation?
That's just a bit different since it's giving something valuable away for free AND spending my valuable time AND doing a giant needle in my arm whilst conscious.
-
Says the guy who's awfully free with
other peoples' bodiesdead people.empty post, please ignore
-
Your next of kin would still get to choose
That strikes me as rather stupid. Can't you override your dumb heirs somehow?
-
Where i live it's not possible for next of kin to override your wishes. Official documentation.
Ved skriftlig donortilmelding kan de pårørende ikke ændre på din beslutning, medmindre du ønsker, at de skal kunne gøre det. Dette skal så afkrydses særskilt på donorkortet eller på tilmeldingen til Donorregistret.
Der er sket en lovændring siden 1987.
Tidligere skulle ens pårørende aktivt acceptere organdonation, men med lovændringen, er det muligt at sætte kryds ved den mulighed, at organdonation kræver accept fra pårørende.Back then next of kin had to actively approve of the donation.Now the affected can check a checkbox that will make donation dependent on accept from next of kin.
-
Would it be thin enough to vacuum the dog hair under the sofa?
What else are you going to do with it? Just use the implant for making calls like everybody does ...
-
That's just a bit different since it's giving something valuable away for free AND spending my valuable time AND doing a giant needle in my arm whilst conscious.
So you should get paid more for donating blood then donating organs after your death?
-
I didn't expect anyone to seriously argue that they'd rather people die than donate their organs for free.
Wrong. You want it, you pay for it. Offer a high enough price, and you'll see a fair increase in organ donations. If you don't consider your organs valuable enough not to give them away, then by all means, go right ahead. Or - wait a minute - perhaps whoever gets paid in that case could do something good with that money - maybe a charity, even.People have absolutely fuck-all imagination these days.
-
I told you, I live in a civilised country.
I'm happy to say that I don't. We're civilized over here.
-
If you don't consider your organs valuable enough not to give them away, then by all means, go right ahead.
We have a surplus of healthy kidneys, but few people are willing to donate them, so many people suffer dialysis and death. Allowing people to be compensated could probably help out a lot of people. On both ends of the transaction.
-
Allowing people to be compensated could probably help out a lot of people.
But it changes who participates, and actively discourages some people. This is a counterintuitive result, but has been observed in practice with blood donation. Kidney donation is rather more serious, and other organs (e.g., liver, heart) are only ever taken post mortem, so I'd guess that compensating there is less useful in the first place.
-
But it changes who participates, and actively discourages some people.
Changing who participates is the point.
This is a counterintuitive result, but has been observed in practice with blood donation.
True, but this is a completely different scale. I'm not sure those results would really apply here.
Kidney donation is rather more serious, and other organs (e.g., liver, heart) are only ever taken post mortem, so I'd guess that compensating there is less useful in the first place.
Yes, compensation would really only work for stuff like kidneys, though it's possible to donate part of your liver, too.
https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2014/10/organ.png
Interesting quotes from that:
Rather than requiring Americans to complete paperwork in order to opt-in to donation at death, the country could shift to the European model of presuming that donation at death was acceptable. But Tom Mone, chief executive of OneLegacy, the nation’s largest organ and tissue recovery organization, points out that “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.”
...
Sally Satel: Donor enrichment would need to begin as a pilot trial. No one is talking about a traditional free market or private contract system. No organ “sales.” And no large lump sum of cash to donors. Those of us who want to test the power of incentives to increase the number of people receiving kidney transplants – and it is a rich network of transplant surgeons, nephrologists, legal scholars, economists, and bioethicists – envision a system where every needy patient, not just the financially well-off, can benefit.
...
Your question about suppressing, or “crowding out,” altruistic donation is one that can only be answered, definitively, by piloting incentives and seeing what happens. That said, the “crowding out” is unlikely. We have no shortages of blood plasma, eggs, sperm, and cadavers for medical school dissection. Why? Because donors are remunerated. Also, data suggest that voluntary activities in such contexts are not suppressed as long as the meaning is preserved. Would-be donors could direct the financial equivalent of their benefit option to a needy party, such as the Red Cross. They could leverage their altruism to help another set of people, plus the recipient.
...
If compensated donation were allowed, my hunch is it would come to resemble surrogate motherhood which, in some states, allows women to be legally compensated for their time and for the risk they assume.Sorry, @darkmatter, for sparsely quoting the article.
-
Yes, compensation would really only work for stuff like kidneys, though it's possible to donate part of your liver, too.
The problem is that the people most motivated to participate by paying tend to be people with either an intoxicant habit (and so with poor quality organs after all the abuse) or who are scum who think that it's great to coerce others (family?) into participating for their own benefit.
Some people are really assholes.
-
The problem is that the people most motivated to participate by paying tend to be people with either an intoxicant habit (and so with poor quality organs after all the abuse) or who are scum who think that it's great to coerce others (family?) into participating for their own benefit.
Read the rest of my post to get some clues about why you're probably wrong to focus on blood donations.
-
@chart said:
Deceased Donors Recovered
How do you recover from being deceased?
-
By confusing the subject with the object?
-
There's only one way to parse that statement. Zero room for confusion.
-
There's only one way to parse that statement.
I think your confusion proves there isn't. You didn't even pick out the right definition for the verb.
-
-
There's only one way to parse that statement. Zero room for confusion.
Yes, as a sentence fragment. Which can be interpreted differently depending on how you fill in the blanks:- Number of Deceased the Donors Recovered
- Number of Deceased Donors which have Recovered
One of these makes sense in context. You and I went with the other.
"Deceased Donors Helped Recover" would have been better.
-
So you should get paid more for donating blood then donating organs after your death?
Yes, you should get paid more for selling blood then selling organs. You should get paid for selling blood. Then you should get paid for selling organs.
Did you mean than?
-
The recovery rate for deceased donors in the United States is actually better than that of European nations with presumed consent laws.
The American model, even as it stands today, is actually somewhat superior to the European one? You don't say.
Why did Ms. Satel call it donor enrichment, rather than donor compensation? What is this, a class war? At least she's going in the right direction:
@Ms. Satel said:Would-be donors could direct the financial equivalent of their benefit option to a needy party, such as the Red Cross. They could leverage their altruism to help another set of people, plus the recipient.
Great minds think alike, bitches!
-
Yes, as a sentence fragment. Which can be interpreted differently depending on how you fill in the blanks:
Number of Deceased the Donors Recovered
Number of Deceased Donors which have Recovered
One of these makes sense in context. You and I went with the other.
"Deceased Donors Helped Recover" would have been better.
I don't think any of your interpretations are correct. It's shorthand for "deceased donors from whom organs were recovered."
-
Your interpretation makes "Deceased Donors Organs Transplanted" sound better.
But then why not "Deceased Donors Organs Recovered"? And how did they transplant more organs than they recovered?
-
Number of Deceased the Donors Recovered
Why would the donors go around recovering the deceased? And recovering from where, the cementery?
It's shorthand for "deceased donors from whom organs were recovered."
That makes sense; but that's not really what the article says.
Also, it appears each donor had like 5-10 transplanted organs on average? Seems a bit high.
-
Then why do you care about having the default to be opt in?
If you don't understand, I won't be able to explain it.
-
Your change wasn't meaningful.
-
Can't you override your dumb heirs somehow?
Well, you're dead, so you can't exactly fight them in court.
-
We have a surplus of healthy kidneys, but few people are willing to donate them, so many people suffer dialysis and death. Allowing people to be compensated could probably help out a lot of people. On both ends of the transaction.
I read a story about some people who've had some luck with a daisy chain of surgeries: you and I both have relatives who need a kidney, but we aren't compatible with our relatives. For some reason, though, my kidney might work with your relative and vice versa. IIRC the article said they'd recently completed a 7-person chain of kidneys.
It's a real-life Legend of Zelda quest.
-
But it changes who participates, and actively discourages some people.
"I was going to give a kidney, but when I found out someone might pay me for it, I said 'fuck that!'"
Seems legit.
-
The problem is that the people most motivated to participate by paying tend to be people with either an intoxicant habit (and so with poor quality organs after all the abuse)
That's only an issue with donors who are still alive, so most organ donations wouldn't be a concern. And if their organs are too damaged to be of any value, don't accept them and don't pay for them. Just because someone signed up to be an organ donor doesn't guarantee payment if they destroy their organs first.
or who are scum who think that it's great to coerce others (family?) into participating for their own benefit.
That's a solved problem. They can already take out a life insurance policy on dear old $relative. Registering to sell organs post-mortem can't be that much more complex.
-
But then why not "Deceased Donors Organs Recovered"? And how did they transplant more organs than they recovered?
One person has multiple organs in his body.
Also, it appears each donor had like 5-10 transplanted organs on average? Seems a bit high.
Why? When you have a viable donor, you make the most of it. I'm sure that includes stuff like corneas, too.
-
I read a story about some people who've had some luck with a daisy chain of surgeries:
That was mentioned in my linked article as a good thing, but not sufficient (obviously) to meet demand.
-
Sounds more like real-life Human Centipede.
-
That was mentioned in my linked article as a good thing, but not sufficient (obviously) to meet demand.
I didn't read the article, but it's such a new thing it couldn't possibly be (reasonably) expected to meet demand yet. You could probably implement it alongside the donor networks and drastically expand the reach fairly quickly, though.
-
Hmm...actually, looking back, it wasn't in that article. I know I looked at several before I picked that one.
-
Allowing people to be compensated could probably help out a lot of people. On both ends of the transaction.
Not to mention that it would prevent stuff like this from occurring:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/07/21/new-planned-parenthood-video-shows-top-doc-haggling-over-price-fetal-body-parts/Planned Parenthood is already reeling from the release of a similar undercover video last week, showing a top doctor discussing the sale of fetal body parts while drinking wine and eating salad.
"Planned Parenthood’s top leadership admits they harvest aborted baby parts and receive payments for this," said Center for Medical Progress Project Lead David Daleiden. "Planned Parenthood’s only denial is that they make money off of baby parts, but that is a desperate lie that becomes more and more untenable as CMP reveals Planned Parenthood’s business operations and statements that prove otherwise."
