The harvest of donor organs when the donor is still a life !, page 1

Doctors want to harvest the organs from a donor before they died !

Doctors of the Rotterdam Erasmus Doctors Medical Center, have a very interesting proposal industry. They want future medical procedure, to start removing one or both of the kidneys to ensure the procedure where the donor organs are given to a patient, has the highest possible success rate, even for those who died.
doctors also believe that this way the patients desire to donate more accepted. The idea was launched on Wednesday in the Dutch magazine Contact Medical doctors.
The doctors believe that the kidneys can be already taken away as soon as the treatment of the dying donor has been stopped.
In most cases death comes quickly sometimes within two hours.

I translated this from a Dutch Article. It could not be entirely complete.


I don't know about you but I think this is crossing a line. If this becomes reality, I think that line will be subject to further re location.

I oppose this Idea.

Link to source. ( page is a translation from the original Dutch site.)


I think this is outrageous !

[edit on 06/03/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

[edit on 06/03/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

There are changes in the works where "Presumed Consent" will make everyone an organ donor whether you like it or not. I expect it will be in fine print soon or worded in such a way that you won't even understand all the implications from the legalese.

In order to not be an organ donor you will probably have to ask for an "opt out" and suppose the opt out paper conveniently "goes missing"?

Also, I have read several articles that the state of declaring one as officially "dead" has been changed in order to take organs while blood is still pumping through them. Also, if you are organ donor, you may not receive drugs that would alleviate pain as it could damage the organs they may want to harvest.


More here:
www.timesonline.co.uk...


I used to read all the papers for terms of service, etc. and I would cross out things I did not agree with or make notations between the spaces of what I expected or would agree to. Now, the doctors and hospitals are no longer giving you the actual papers to sign. They have a laminated copy you can read, but then you have to sign on a computerized screen. They say "your signature is for this copy" as they hold up the laminated contract. There is no way to cross out anything or add notations.

reply to post by Alethea

---

I think this is a very disturbing future in the making !

You didn't have already found an escape card, did you ?

reply to post by ExPostFacto

---

If what Alethea says is true, we are not given the choice in the future.

I know there is also speculated make everyone a donor. Only if you don't want to you will have to take action.
The ones who are rejecting donor ship could be denied to obtain one if they need a new organ.

Looks to me this would be a side effect.

reply to post by FredT

---

The reason I posted this is because they do NOT wait til death or braindeath occurs. They even say death will follow soon after removal.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

---

"Brain death" is different from "death", clinically speaking. You can pronounce someone brain dead with no real legal binding, but to declare someone "dead" is an actually pronouncement of passing. I think that much has been lost in translation here. They aren't harvesting organs from patients who have even a sliver of a chance to recover.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

---

I'm sorry maybe I should have said the patients were already dying.
The procedure speeds up the progress. They are not brain death and they agree to let his/her organs to be removed.

What matters to me is the boundary they cross with it.
It makes it easier to cross it again.

[edit on 06/03/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

---

I'm sorry maybe I should have said the patients were already dying.
The procedure speeds up the progress. They are not brain death and they agree to let his/her organs to be removed.

What matters to me is the boundary they cross with it.
It makes it easier to cross it again.

[edit on 06/03/2010 by Sinter Klaas]

If the patient agrees, I see no problem with it. Informed consent is informed consent. It's the same reason I believe in physician-assisted suicide. If the patient is terminal, in pain, and there is no reasonable treatment, they should absolutely have the final decision in when and how to end their own life.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa

---

I agree. I feel the same way.

But as we humans do with almost everything. I see in this to many possibilities ending up in something bad one way or another.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

---

Thanks for this thread. The worst-case scenarios of "crossing the line" with organs being removed from living people were spelled out in gruesome detail in the novels of Larry Niven decades ago:

A Gift from Earth (1968) was his earliest examination of this topic. The Long ARM of Gil Hamilton is one of his later novels that revisits issues with organ donations from even weirder and more gruesome perspectives.

Here is a fan-based website that discusses all of Larry Niven's writings, with Niven's consent:

www.larryniven.org...

I recommend that whenever anyone joins a health plan, read carefully through all of the plan policies, and make sure you recheck their policies on a regular basis. That way you will be aware of any policies related to organ donation, as well as other potential crossing-the-line policies, such as the use of fake blood (blood substitutes, none of which actually work well). It's a dangerous world.

There's also the problem of being in a car or other transportation accident, where by law they have to take you to the nearest health care facility, where who-knows-what kinds of policies will prevail.

I'm planning to move to a neighborhood where I will have access to rail transit and can then minimize my traveling by car. Last time I looked at the statistics, car accidents are far more common than rail accidents.

[edit on 3/11/2010 by Uphill]

reply to post by Sinter Klaas

---

The fresher the better, no? Why not just select a few randomly at birth, for the most viable and friable?

Nothing like the advance of modern socialized medicine, is there? Society benefits form the sacrifice of a few.

reply to post by Uphill

---

Thank you for the link. I'll look in to it later.

Most accidents happen in and around the house you know. You're not gonna live under a bridge because of it do you.

Really. I've got to tell you to stop worrying. Death comes no matter what. You can't do anything about it. It's a waste of precious time you could have enjoyed.

First Heartless Man - You Don\'t Really Need A Heart or A Pulse
  Posted 6 days ago with 51 member flags

Mystery teen illness: Brokovich team barred from testing school grounds
  Posted 12 days ago with 47 member flags

Doctor Uses Coconut Oil to Reverse Husband\'s Alzheimer\'s Disease
  Posted 11 days ago with 28 member flags

A brief look at water fluoridation and the insanity of it
  Posted 9 days ago with 28 member flags

Brains of Addicts Are Inherently Abnormal
  Posted 5 days ago with 20 member flags

FDA say body is a drug and has the right to regulate it!
  Posted 8 days ago with 18 member flags

Common Food Items Could Contain 180 Times More Fluoride Than Tap Water!
  Posted 2 days ago with 17 member flags

MPD/DID and Quantum Psychiatry
  Posted 12 days ago with 12 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: