It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should non-organ Donors be Given Organs??

page: 2
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey




I'll concede to this approach: If both guys had exactly the same circumstances, health variables, got on the list at exactly the same time, and there was only one heart left in the world to give, at that point, I would say that maybe the willingness to selflessly* donate one's organs at death should be a determining factor.


Thats pretty much my approach too.

Only I would say that the length of time on the register should not really matter, its never a first come first serve kind of deal anyway.

but yeah if both guys have the same chances of survival and have the same level of clinical need then I think the guy who has been on the register should get it over the other dude.




posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I like the question from an ethical standpoint, but I imagine that most people who need an organ transplant are ruled out as donors based on their medical history. Not all, but I imagine most would be.

It's not that easy to qualify as a donor as I found out when my mom died.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I see organ donation as a selfless act. I don't get the point of making it a quid pro quo where you have to agree to organ donation to get someone else's donated organs.

Indeed, even the idea of something like this repulses me.



If you read through the thread I am not saying that someone say born with debilitating cystic fibrosis should not get a lung transplant because they cannot be organ donors.

What I am asking is that if it comes down to a choice between a few people who are suitable to receive the organ and one of them has long been a organ donor should that not be the one who gets the organ.

No. The person who gets the organ is the one who needs it most (triage). In the absence of that, it should go to the person who is next on the waiting list.

This is my opinion, of course. I just don't see donors as more special than non-donors.


I have been involved in organ donation before I know how it works.

Its based on a number of factors, I am just asking if having been a organ donor should also be one of those factors.

If nothing else it might encourage more people to be on the organ donor list.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I like the question from an ethical standpoint, but I imagine that most people who need an organ transplant are ruled out as donors based on their medical history. Not all, but I imagine most would be.

It's not that easy to qualify as a donor as I found out when my mom died.



Again as I pointed out at the end of the OP, I am not saying that those who have pre-existing condition that requires a organ donation should be refused one.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin


A very simple question but a interesting one.

Should non-organ donors be given organs?

I mean really if you think about it, should person who is unwilling to donate one of their organs receive a organ from a donor over a individual who is willing to donate a organ.

Lets put this foreword as a hypothetical scenario. Lets say we have bill and bob, bill is a organ donor all his adult life but he's been having a spot of bad luck recently and he needs a new hart, Bill is in the exact same sorry situation only he has never once so much as thought about donating blood let alone a organ. Assuming both men have the same chances of surviving the operation, should it not only be right that the Bill gets the hart??

In fact isn't it unfair that they guy who has never given any thought to organ donation is given the chance to get a organ over those who have been willing to donate all their lives.

Shouldn't those who have already declared that they would be willing to donate a organ be in-font of those who have not?

I think it would be fair.

Now yes I know that for some people due to their specific condition they may just have never been able to get on the donor register and yes I also know that Medical need should come first. However when it is a choice between a individual who has been a long term organ donor and a guy who has never held a organ donor card, shouldn't the other guy get the organ?

Just a interesting ethical conundrum I thought could make for a interesting discussion.


I agree. Barring any legit reasons why someone is not a donor, i think organ donors should take priority over non donors imho. In fact, i think organ donation should be the default. You should have to opt out of organ donation.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




What if the dude we dont save down to him not wishing to donate turns out to be the one that cures cancer or discovers FTL travel through?


Hope the guy who was saved does it!




In a perfect world i say save both, but in this one i say save the one most compatible with the organ in question because that what the doctors do.


Agreed but what I am asking is that if both are compatible, both have the same clinical need and both are just as likely to survive, then should the guy who has been on the organ donor register not be the one who gets it.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:47 PM
link   
I was once told if u check the organ donar box ur level 1 trama care wont be the same

It was just a rna that told me this ... but i took his word for it and unchecked the box

The stories he had about hospitals ... he spent alot of time in the er and terminal care

If it wasent for that warning tho i woulda never unchecked the box i figured when im dead i dont need them ... but the idea of being keep alive as a warm organ bag bothers me ... true or not



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: icanteven

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I see organ donation as a selfless act. I don't get the point of making it a quid pro quo where you have to agree to organ donation to get someone else's donated organs.

Indeed, even the idea of something like this repulses me.



If you read through the thread I am not saying that someone say born with debilitating cystic fibrosis should not get a lung transplant because they cannot be organ donors.

What I am asking is that if it comes down to a choice between a few people who are suitable to receive the organ and one of them has long been a organ donor should that not be the one who gets the organ.

No. The person who gets the organ is the one who needs it most (triage). In the absence of that, it should go to the person who is next on the waiting list.

This is my opinion, of course. I just don't see donors as more special than non-donors.


I have been involved in organ donation before I know how it works.

Its based on a number of factors, I am just asking if having been a organ donor should also be one of those factors.

If nothing else it might encourage more people to be on the organ donor list.



My final answer is that I don't think it should be one of the factors.


You probably addressed where you stand earlier in the thread... I just don't remember, even though I read the whole thing. Are you in favor of organ donors getting prioritized over non donors?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:50 PM
link   
no



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: markovian




I was once told if u check the organ donar box ur level 1 trama care wont be the same


I can assure you that is utter bollocks.

Actually almost the opposite at times can be true, I worked on a case once were we had a young guy who was going to have his organs harvested, he was worked on for ages, actually when someone is sitting in a Resus trolly we never know if they are or are not Organ donors. In my experience we usually only find out from a family member after the death or through the hospital organ donation coordinator.

That is in the UK, might be different in the states.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Doctors and medical services should not discriminate who they help.

After all i think somewhere in the Hippocratic Oath it states "I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment".

Don't say anything about special treatment for those who donate body parts.

Although unless stated otherwise i think everyone that dies and is viable should be harvested.


Not discriminate but prioritize.

Im a donor and Frankly I don't want my organs going to someone who destroyed their own by choices like smoking, drinking and over eating... I'm even a smoker and drinker but feel this way.

The reason we have to prioritize now is because we don't have enough donors to match the need. Not because we don't have enough people dying with viable organs to share. Therefore, as long as a defecit exists, donors should take priority.

It's the only way to drive increase donor levels to a point That offsets the unbalanced demand.

It's like someone demanding government benefits but refusing to pay taxes

edit on bThursday201754b by Infinitis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven




Are you in favor of organ donors getting prioritized over non donors?


I think it should be a consideration when deciding who is most suitable for the organ.

That is to say that if it comes down to picking between two people one who was a organ donor and the other who was not, then it should go to the one on the organ donor register.

That is not quite the same as saying they have absolute priority, the ethics of this are very difficult. Say for example someone is going to die in the next month with out a new heart, they should still have priority over the people who are on the register.

All I am saying is that it think it should be a considering factor, not the biggest factor but just something to be considered.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I know what you are asking, and i think you know what my answer would be.


Ethically through it amounts to playing God with life.

Lets face it through, whens the last time said deity performed heart surgery?

He would simply let them both die and claim predestination.

Morality seems to be rather a female dog in some respects.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I like the question from an ethical standpoint, but I imagine that most people who need an organ transplant are ruled out as donors based on their medical history. Not all, but I imagine most would be.

It's not that easy to qualify as a donor as I found out when my mom died.



Again as I pointed out at the end of the OP, I am not saying that those who have pre-existing condition that requires a organ donation should be refused one.



And that isn't what I meant by my comment.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:55 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



What I am asking is that if it comes down to a choice between a few people who are suitable to receive the organ and one of them has long been a organ donor should that not be the one who gets the organ.


The biggest problem with your conundrum is that one person may have selfishly donated a kidney knowing full well he had heart issues - hoping to get to the front of the list for a heart.

Organ transplant are big business, and I would question the mental gymnastics Drs would go through to write the ethical papers to present to Legislators condoning the practice.
What when the organ donor without a kidney but a new heart starts having further health issues. More drain on resources or looked at another way - more $ for the Doctors.

Thanks for a great thread...makes one think.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Infinitis

Its not the only way, we can clone sheep we can clone humans for spare parts.

But that's another moral quagmire although non the less relevant.

edit on 20-7-2017 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




Ethically through it amounts to playing God with life.


A lot in healthcare amounts to playing god though at times.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



Would it not be rather unjust for him to lose out on the organ to a guy who has not so much as donated a pint of blood?


Using cold logic ( I'm not accusing you ) one could say there should not be free emergency treatment for the unemployed or retired elderly - after all they aren't contributing in taxes.. Not the type of world I would enjoy being part of.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I have written this very much from a UK perspective were things like that are not really so much of a issue.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




In a perfect world i say save both, but in this one i say save the one most compatible with the organ in question because that's what the doctors do.

Compatibility - I forgot about that - good point




top topics



 
16
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join