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.

 

NY considers creating `organ-removal' ambulance

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   

NY considers creating `organ-removal' ambulance


hosted.ap.org

The city is considering creating a special ambulance whose crew would rush to collect the newly deceased and preserve the body so that the organs might be taken for transplant.

The "rapid-organ-recovery ambulance," still in the early planning stages, could raise a host of ethical questions and strike some families as ghoulish. But top medical officials in the Fire Department and Bellevue Hospital say it has the potential to save hundreds of lives.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Seriously, this is way to creepy for me. So we can afford to give livers to banned Japanese gangsters, but we need to have this for everyday americans? What about the story of that woman who just came back to life 24 hours after being declared dead. Now instead of this ne "ice bath" that could possibly restore life to many, we are going to have them rushing to cut you up. This is why I don't put donor on my ID. My family can make that decision for me....

hosted.ap.org
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Thought I would post this for those too lazy to read the article....

The transplant ambulance would turn up at the scene of a death mere minutes after regular paramedics ceased efforts to resuscitate a patient. The team would begin work almost immediately, administering drugs and performing chest compressions intended to keep the organs viable.


These are some related discussions...

www.abovetopsecret.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:29 PM
link   
There have GOT to be people like me who are bothered by this! Really THINK about the implications of this! What if these "drivers" get a bonus for taking your organs! Can you imagine being at the scene of an accident, waiting for them to take your loved one to the hospital, and then they start taking their organs, or "preserving" the body? And then people wonder why I am against socialized medicine. Then who gets to make these life or death decisions?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
And will the donors families receive a compensatory share of the hundreds of thousands of dollars the medical centers and physicians WILL be getting for this free 'harvest' of organs?

Or is it supposed to be so that only the business get the huge cash benefits?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


But doesn't the thought of medical teams not doing enough to save your family for those bonuses bother you more than whether or not you get a share of said profit?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:39 PM
link   
really interesting.. what will happen in a crime scene ? Will they hold the body indefinitely until they sell the parts or what?? What about car accidents, natural disasters ? will loved one ever be able to bury their loved ones properly?

Just a few ? that I have ...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


Actually I have NO objections to organ harvesting per se...., I simply demand that if I DONATE the organ the recipient should not be paying for it (via insurance or otherwise) yet in today's world the docs and hospitals are getting obscenely compensated as if it was THEIR property being donated.

Too much money in the business, sorry; no organs for profit [period]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Guys, as long as organ donation is still a voluntary process (which it is) I think you're making too much out of this. You could just as easily say that under the current system anyone who dies in a hospital emergency room who's also an organ donor might have died because "the medical staff didn't do all they could to save him/her thanks to them seeing the dollar signs attached to their organs." There has been a pretty loud stink made in the past over surviving loved ones being cheesed off that their dead family member wasn't able to provide their organs to people who needed them because too much time passed between being declared dead and getting the organs prepared for storage and transit.

I am not an organ donor and don't plan on ever registering as one, but I don't think there's any more risk around this plan than currently exists with a major procedure or resuscitation in a hospital.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Actually, no offense, but if you read the connecting threads, you would see that there are cases where maybe someone will "pull through". And what sets the benchmark for "doing all we could?"
Don't think they sell organs for profit? The L.A. times just broke the story of the three Japanese gangsters, barred from the U.S., who were given special VISAa to visit and get organ donations. Over 120 people died in the LA area from a lack of livers, but these three followed up their surgeries with $100,000 "donations". So your argument holds less water than you think it does.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jasonjnelson
 


What part of this statement:



You could just as easily say that under the current system anyone who dies in a hospital emergency room who's also an organ donor might have died because "the medical staff didn't do all they could to save him/her thanks to them seeing the dollar signs attached to their organs."


did you miss? How is this ambulance scenario any different from what we currently have? If your argument is that the current system is broken & unfair, then I agree with you. But I understood your main problem was with this new extension of basically the same thing we currently have, just with improved recovery times, and the "new" potential for abuses.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The new system, as you have coined it, would mean that the decisions are being made by E.M.T.'s, not Doctors. Now I know EMTs, and they are grand heroes, but they would not cut it in my eyes if my wife was on the "table" get here to the f-ing hospital, or put her in an Ice bath, (or injected cold saline) so that the doctors get a crack at her. This new power granted to these EMTs and firefighters scares me.
Sorry, I see your point, but disagree with the decision maker.
And yes, the ENTIRE system is broken, but I think that soon we might be able to grow organs with our own stem cells...



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:33 PM
link   
How can it be possible to harvest their organs? Most states, if not all, require that all bodies have an autopsy to determine cause of true death, even if it goes against ethical and religious views. So if they harvest the organs, how will the autopsy doctor that it wasn't a case of someone poisoning them, drug overdose, suicide, etc?

I highly doubt NY will do this.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jasonjnelson
The new system, as you have coined it, would mean that the decisions are being made by E.M.T.'s, not Doctors. Now I know EMTs, and they are grand heroes, but they would not cut it in my eyes if my wife was on the "table" get here to the f-ing hospital, or put her in an Ice bath, (or injected cold saline) so that the doctors get a crack at her. This new power granted to these EMTs and firefighters scares me.
Sorry, I see your point, but disagree with the decision maker.
And yes, the ENTIRE system is broken, but I think that soon we might be able to grow organs with our own stem cells...


I didn't coin it as a new system. That's my entire point. It's the exact same system, just a new vehicle for that same old system to use. Since you agree that the entire system is broken, we have no real argument here. I was just curious at why people are up in arms over this single story when, in reality, they should have been up in arms over the entire organ donation process which grants the organs to whoever has the most money and whoever will provide the doctors/hospital with the most publicity and glory. That's part of the reason I'm not an organ donor.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:52 PM
link   
For all the ramification mentioned here and much more...
It is known that there are many unnecessary surgeries performed.
Child birth the natural way seems to be no longer an option.
The doc prefers to do the C-section.
I wonder if he gets paid more.

Due to the enormous profit I would suspect that most of these transplants are not needed and/or will not be a great benefit to the patient.

I think this organ transplant proceedure should stop.
It should be outlawed and the truth be known.
People are ignorant. They think this is the greatest thing ever. It isn't.
It is barbaric.

Have you ever seen any statistics on the number of transplants being done?
statistics

Somehow that seems like a lot to me.
Do you really think that there actually are that many viable organs available?
Also it is much hyped beyond the actual advantage.
Life after a transplant is never normal.
They can be constantly sick.
Not much is said about life expectancy, when it is the longest living patient is the one they always point to, and put much emphasis on the longest time.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join