Monk Posted 30 July 2008 Author Posted 30 July 2008 Actually, question for Monk as he might know (or anyone else that does!). just to satisfy my own curiosity... isn't it a very small percentage of people who die (who were carrying a donor card or on the register) whose organs are actually able to be used? All to do with the way you die (believe I read it was often only people who died in accidents who'd organs were used - could be wrong ); the condition of your organs; how quickly they get you to hospital and - if necessary - get consent to remove them, etc, etc?Incidentally, I now have 3 donor cards (in my purse, in the car and at home) so, if I did die, it would be pretty easy to find one. Also, I often drive at the same racetrack and (because obviously the risk of death there is greatly increased) I've made them add to my records (where they'd check for next of kin etc) that I'm willing to donate my organs and to check the register. I like to cover all bases! Yes, they don't necessarily remove the organs if consent exists. But I still think that means some intrusive tests to find out if they are usable, and if so, they are removed. However I'm led to believe that most organs which could be used, are used. There is a very efficient matching system in place whereby they match the tissue type and various other metrics against a database of the waiting list, and they take various factors into account in choosing who should get it. Then the organs get whisked away to the transplant hospital. If you're on the list you have to carry a pager at all times in case they find an organ for you. On the flip side, I would expect that if assumed consent were to go through then a lower percentage of the available organs would be used because the surgeons would be working at high/full capacity to carry out the operations, therefore there would be more organs available than could feasibly transplanted. This is why it is crucial such a scheme should be managed properly - an organ should not be taken unless it is actually going to be used. I think that's pretty achievable with a national database and strict controls around the process. Hope that satisfies your, er curiosity. Good on you with the Donor cards What do you drive on the said racetrack?
The People's Hero Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 Besides it will give me the chance to vicariously live again.
Alexikokopops Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 They can have whatever part of me they want, I really don't care. In fact I'd be pissed off if they wasted some of me. No point just rotting away. BAM! There it is.
Tommy G Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 Then you have the flip side of the argument...should people be given transplants if they have abused their body due to excessive drinking/smoking etc. Should a heart transplant be offered to someone who is 30 stone and has made no effort to live their life in a decent manner and stuffs fish and chips down their neck 15 times a day? All controversial issues, was George Best given a Liver transplant?
AoWW Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 Hmmm, perhaps we should all set 'worthiness' levels that potential recipients have to meet before they can have our oh-so-precious organs. After all, it'd be so much better to have your organs rot away to nothing than give them to some smoking, drinking, overweight layabout. Personally, I couldn't give a flying-fuck who has my organs - who knows, if it enabled them to live, or even have a better quality of life, it could well be the catalyst that persuades them to re-evaluate their lifestyle too.
Tommy G Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 Hmmm, perhaps we should all set 'worthiness' levels that potential recipients have to meet before they can have our oh-so-precious organs. After all, it'd be so much better to have your organs rot away to nothing than give them to some smoking, drinking, overweight layabout. Personally, I couldn't give a flying-fuck who has my organs - who knows, if it enabled them to live, or even have a better quality of life, it could well be the catalyst that persuades them to re-evaluate their lifestyle too. I'm a strong believer that people should be put in priorities when it comes to donation. Organs won't be ''rotting away to nothing'' as you put it becuause there is already a shortage. People know the dangers of excessive drinking/smoking and what it can do to them. It would be unfair to give an organ to a heavy smoker who is ill because of HIS actions over someone who has a natural occurring lung disease which is no fault of their own! If you can't see the justice in that then it baffles me.
Monk Posted 30 July 2008 Author Posted 30 July 2008 Then you have the flip side of the argument...should people be given transplants if they have abused their body due to excessive drinking/smoking etc.Should a heart transplant be offered to someone who is 30 stone and has made no effort to live their life in a decent manner and stuffs fish and chips down their neck 15 times a day? All controversial issues, was George Best given a Liver transplant? It's an interesting moral question but I think in practise you could not distinguish that on a case by case basis. People who go to prison for serious offences usually get a second chance in life when they are released. A fat person or alcoholic has not broken any laws as such so why should they not be eligible. I agree if you were alive to see your organs being used in that way you may frown upon it, but for the system to work effectively we can't be picky.
Monk Posted 30 July 2008 Author Posted 30 July 2008 I'm a strong believer that people should be put in priorities when it comes to donation. Organs won't be ''rotting away to nothing'' as you put it becuause there is already a shortage. People know the dangers of excessive drinking/smoking and what it can do to them. It would be unfair to give an organ to a heavy smoker who is ill because of HIS actions over someone who has a natural occurring lung disease which is no fault of their own! If you can't see the justice in that then it baffles me. Prioritising and exclusion are 2 very different things. I agree in the example above the self inflicted illness should be a lower priority, but they should still be equally eligible to receive an organ.
Daggers Posted 30 July 2008 Posted 30 July 2008 I don't understand why anyone has to think about this - once I'm dead I hope they can salvage something to save or improve the life of someone else. I don't think anyone should have a choice in the matter once they're dead - just cut 'em up and plunder.
Monk Posted 17 November 2008 Author Posted 17 November 2008 Sorry to bring up the other Organ Donation thread, but there were some very interesting articles on assumed consent, but unfortunately coming to the wrong conclusions. I think it's pretty shocking that people are dying needlessly on dialysis because people find the thought of giving their organs a little squeamish (sp). Really hope they can push this change to assumed consent through... 'You're waiting for the call that might mean life or death' Chief medical officer condemns organ donor decision Organ donation: Brown says presumed consent still an option
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.