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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I used to have organ donor on the back of my license, but I removed that since I am falling apart.




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

Could be worse, we could stay in a nation with no national health service.

Fact is our children might.


Healthcare amounts to statistics in this day of age. Christ Doctors and Nurses stick DNR orders on most old people should there be no relatives around or the poor souls state to the contrary.

Seen that happen to both my Gran and Grandpa.

But yes healthcare amounts to playing god, more than he does actually.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
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.


Sounds like solid reasoning. I still disagree, but would buy you a beer anyway.

Medical ethics must be a complex field!
edit on 20-7-2017 by icanteven because: typo



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:05 PM
link   
One should always give without expectation. It should not matter if someone is a donor or not to receive.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baldryck
One should always give without expectation. It should not matter if someone is a donor or not to receive.


I can see why you would say that but its a little to idealistic for me.

We have have a supply and demand problem when it comes to organs.

So all I am asking is that should those who are willing to donate not be considered as a factor when trying to decide who gets the next lung ?



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: markovian

Very worrying - and now you're swaying me to not consider being a donor. After reading about killings in South America for organ harvesting and the organs finding there way back to rich Americans, it wouldn't surprise me



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:13 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

What about people who only wish to donate certain organs and not others?

Should people who wish to donate the whole cadaver be given preferential selection over people who only wish to partially donate?

It's a pure slippery slope, certainly not one i would wish to transverse.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: andy06shake




What about people who only wish to donate certain organs and not others?


I don't know, good point.

I suppose you could say that if you say you are unwilling to donate your heart for example and you need a heart then the same logic would apply I think and it would work both ways.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No, I do not believe it should be a deciding factor.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

IMO, the heart/organ should go to the patient who's current health status offers the best chances for success. That being equal, I'd then lean towards giving it to the patient in the most critical state.

I donated blood every other month when I was young, then I contracted hepatitis and the blood bank had no use for me after that.

I don't know for sure, but I don't think they want my organs any more either and I'll bet this is true for many illnesses like AIDS, Ebola, etc., as well as for people who may have been exposed to highly toxic elements and/or radiation.

Furthermore, I think it's a slippery slope to go down.

Once we start considering anything other than the health of the patient when determining who gets the organ, I fear it's just a matter of time before donors will demand the right to dictate who gets their organs and they'll do so based on their predetermined biases.



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

Sounds like a tricky form to fill in and a system that could potentially be abused if ever there was one.

Need to keep it simple, and the simple fact is that we should endeavour to provide the same level of health care for all our citizens, but that's me back in that perfect world again.

If only i could live there.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:21 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Note: the Netherlands hasn't improved supply with an opt-out system.

www.vocativ.com...


it’s not clear that an opt-out system gets more donations — other countries such as the Netherlands that have implemented the system haven’t improved their transplant rate, he adds. More importantly, another thing that would have to change is who pays to care for dying patients.
In places like Spain that have a single-payer healthcare system, healthcare providers might move a dying patient to the intensive care unit, increasing the level of care before they are braindead with an eye towards preparing their organs to be donated.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Practically speaking, it doesn't make much sense. People who need organs are usually not in a position to donate. They're too sick or too old. Their bodies are compromised. You want to make decisions based on your philosophical stance. That's ethically questionable right there.
edit on 7/20/2017 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baldryck
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

No, I do not believe it should be a deciding factor.



Fair enough I am just putting this out there as a interesting discussion.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler
Practically speaking, it doesn't make much sense. People who need organs are usually not in a position to donate. They're too sick or too old. Their bodies are compromise. You want to make decisions based on your philosophical stance. That's ethically questionable right there.


From the OP


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.


I also expand on it further.

Not wanting to sound argumentative but I do wonder if the people posting this are responding to the title or the OP.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

www.abc.net.au...


"In Australia organ and tissue donation is recognised as an altruistic decision, it is not forced upon the community," she said...

Transplant Australia chief executive Chris Thomas said "compulsorily acquiring" ran the risk of "turning what is one of the most altruistic acts into a system of mistrust and misunderstanding".

"Whilst it is part of the increased donation rate in Croatia, it has not assisted Greece which has one of the lowest donation rates in the world," the spokeswoman said.

But the OTA said there was no evidence in Australia or internationally that an opt-out system led to an increased rate of organ donation.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Interesting question and my answer is no. Personally, I do not wish to give my organs nor receive someone else's.

And with that said,I plan to give my body for forensic studies. You know, one of the ones they let rot in the soil to teach new comers what to look for.

That way, no # injected in my corpse (hey, it's still mine even then...
), and no cremation. Just returning to nature. I'll probably lobby to insure my body stays a few months in the ground before they get to studying it's skeletal remain.

On the plus side, it's a very cheap way to get buried, haha.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   
As the two hypothetical men in question are of equal age and health I would give the heart to the nondonor.
The reason for this is that the donor's body would be of more use once he died as several of his organs could save the lives of several people, not just one.

BTW, I'm a donor and I need heart surgery.



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I think you are asking the wrong question because the scenario of two different people having the exact same transplant requirements at the exact same time is probably impossible.

But having a quick gander online, there seems to be two different allocation processes here in the UK depending on the organ. Kidneys are allocated to individual patients on a waiting list using a complex computer algorithm. While, other organs are offered to transplant centres rather than being designated for a specific patients. If the centre that is allocated the organ fails more than 5 individual compatibility tests from their patient list, it is then offered to all centres in the UK.

www.bbc.co.uk...



posted on Jul, 20 2017 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LookingForABetterLife

And thats probobly exactly how such a system would be abused if it existed.

Doctors would be like oh lets let him die after all it gives us more spare parts.


The logic is sound enough all the same.


Seems our organs if not our human condition may be greater than the sum of our parts.

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



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join