Organ donation and smoking

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by deltaalphanovember
 


Recipients are aware of and influenced by "cellular memories" from their donor according to Paul Pearsall, PhD in his 1999 book 'The Heart's Code' including lifestyle choices, but I doubt a recipient who has been given the gift of a second chance at a normal, healthy life is going to give in to a craving for a smoke when he/she has been a non-smoker prior to transplant surgery.




posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Your organs will not be taken prematurely if you have signed up for donation in the event that you are pronounced brain dead, in fact under these circumstances the organs are maintained in an intensive care ward until you are declared brain dead after which cross matching tests (to find a matching recipient) are done.

Brain death is determined by pre-set rules which include cessation of cerebral blood flow (by scan) and/or physical examination by two independent medical doctors (intensivists or neurologists generally would do this). The tests include the following:-

1.Nil response to pain
2.No pupillary response to light (pupils are fixed)
3.No corneal reflex (cotton wool is brushed across the open eyes)
4.No caloric reflex (cold water ?saline is syringed into the ears)
5.No gag reflex
6.No spontaneous respirations (unable to breathe when ventilator is switched off over a set period of time)
6.No oculocephalic reflex (eyes follow movement of the head rather than moving against the direction of movement as is the normal case when the head is moved from side to side)

On the other hand however, if you are not going to gift your organs and the prognosis is poor, then the medical team will attempt to wean the patient from the ventilator with the aim of extubation and transfer from intensive care to a ward setting. If however the patient fails to breathe independently, then they are removed from the ventilator (extubation) and allowed to die. In the latter case it is extremely rare that the patient ever takes a single breath, nor do they show signs of discomfort.

Death is something which comes to us all eventually, and I believe that the best thing we can do to allay our fears is to look within for the answers about life and its' meaning well before we are confronted with the knowledge of impending demise.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:18 AM
link   
For a number of reasons I will never be an organ donor.

Your thread reminds me of this



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by davespanners
If a doctor is so corrupt that he is removing organs from people to sell then what makes you think he's going to give a damn about whether you signed an organ donation form or not? You think that they can't give you a fake Donor card?
I can go to this site right now and fill in a donor card with any name I want.

According to this site most black market activity that exists in the US happens way after the point of you being in hospital


In the U.S., a black market for human tissue exists. It usually involves bodies about to be cremated. A black market broker may enter into a financial arrangement with a criminally minded funeral home director and carve up the bodies before they're cremated. Falsified papers -- such as consent forms and death certificates -- are produced,



the only problem with that quote, is that they basically have 45mins after you die to take the organs.

by the time you get to the funeral home they would be worthless.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 07:27 AM
link   
Greed rears it's ugly face in every aspect of our lives, why would it not in the organ transplant arena?
Is it the only sector that is impervious to this malicious force?

If someone is willing to 'donate' a substantial amount to a medical body/corporation with the implied knowledge that they might receive preferential organ donation treatment one day in the future ...

Do you really think that corporation will use every tool in the armory to save someone who is going to donate their organs that could go to the benefactor?

If however the patient is NOT going to donate, then there is no conflict of interest whatsoever. The Hippocratic oath is the overriding force, not money.

Is this unreasonable?



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooks

Originally posted by davespanners
If a doctor is so corrupt that he is removing organs from people to sell then what makes you think he's going to give a damn about whether you signed an organ donation form or not? You think that they can't give you a fake Donor card?
I can go to this site right now and fill in a donor card with any name I want.

According to this site most black market activity that exists in the US happens way after the point of you being in hospital


In the U.S., a black market for human tissue exists. It usually involves bodies about to be cremated. A black market broker may enter into a financial arrangement with a criminally minded funeral home director and carve up the bodies before they're cremated. Falsified papers -- such as consent forms and death certificates -- are produced,



the only problem with that quote, is that they basically have 45mins after you die to take the organs.

by the time you get to the funeral home they would be worthless.


Not true. Corneas, skin, tendons, and bone can be taken after death.

This research is true as far as the topic of black market theft is concerned. The link in the reply was one of the very rare times that I spoke of that there was a short lived black market that was uncovered. As I stated, it is rare that anything like that even happens, and certainly not with viable organs like heart and lungs, etc. (Though skin is considered the largest organ in the body, it is differentiated from true internal organs in relation to donation.)

One thing that people need to realize is that when you are dead, as in brain dead, and a viable candidate for organ donation, there is no time to worry about *who* you are, but that finding a match in the most expedient ways is what counts.

The amount of drugs needed to keep a body functioning are massive and the technique is only good for some hours. As the body begins to deteriorate, yes, even on life support once you die a brain death, the body can only be kept alive with drugs for a short time - the deterioration begins.

Laws in most states in the US prevent keeping a body on life support once death has been declared - for more than 48-72 hours. The true organ donation process usually takes anywhere from 6-8 hours in most cases. If a recipient is too far away, a closer candidate is given the offer.

As I stated before, the massive drugs needed to obtain this state eventually rule OUT organ donation, and happens somewhat frequently with families that have indecision and infighting or cannot make a decision. This is why I stress the importance of making your personal wishes known in writing.

The National waiting lists are available for review, and are monitored in so much that people cannot be "forwarded" into any position of importance. To claim as much would be akin to claiming people are being murdered for certain recipients, and this cannot be predicted without extensive tissue typing. In other words, no one knows until you die what matches will occur. The first available recipients are the ones that match, not the other way around.



edit on 21-9-2010 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
Greed rears it's ugly face in every aspect of our lives, why would it not in the organ transplant arena?
Is it the only sector that is impervious to this malicious force?

If someone is willing to 'donate' a substantial amount to a medical body/corporation with the implied knowledge that they might receive preferential organ donation treatment one day in the future ...

Do you really think that corporation will use every tool in the armory to save someone who is going to donate their organs that could go to the benefactor?

If however the patient is NOT going to donate, then there is no conflict of interest whatsoever. The Hippocratic oath is the overriding force, not money.

Is this unreasonable?




Yes, it is unreasonable.

Explain to me how you can guarantee the person will die a brain death?

Explain to me how the person with the correct tissue typing will die a brain death, and be close enough to that recipient.

Explain to me how the tissue typing will be done on someone prior to brain death and within the 4 hour window to assure that person who may need a heart will be the proper type.

The only problem with your speculations is - well - the whole thing. You cannot expedite brain death on unknown tissue type donors with the intent of fulfilling the needs of a particular recipient.

Ignorance of the process rules out the possiblities of your ongoing attempts to make it conspiratorial.

Please do explain, however, how you would expedite brain death in a cardiac patient and guarantee they are the proper tissue type to fulfil your conspiracy?

The entire medical process leading up to and creating an inconspicuous brain death in and of itself - please do enlighten us?


People donate all the time to non-profit organizations. Please do realize they are not with nefarious intent of buying a way into a Nationalized waiting list with the desire of preferential treatment. It is very demeaning to undermine the good will of these people. This is probably one of the only places there is most assuredly *no* guarantee of a return of any benefits.



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by fooks
 


I should have posted the link to go with the quote sorry. The organs from funeral homes are not used as donations to transplant they are bought to be used in medical training, the same place a lot of donated organs end up



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Sorry drifting off a little bit at the beginning her cause I haven't seen it come up yet. I think it's pretty stupid that smokers are allowed to donate certain organs (especially considering that traces of nicotine can be found in organs and blood after 6 months), when people who have been involved in homosexual activity in a certain period of time are not. Many gay people I know have been in one relationship their entire lives, both members are HIV negative, but if you conduct in "homosexual activity
" in a certain time frame, they are allowed to disallow donation (same goes for donating blood) because you are at "higher risk" for getting HIV. Let's not pretend we can't test blood and organs for HIV; is it really okay to deny the donation that could save multiple lives just because of the 15% added potential for a disease -- especially considering that it is denying an entire group of people who can't change what they are? That's like denying a woman a pregnancy because she is Caucasian and therefore more likely to produce a baby with skin cancer. Pretty stupid if you ask me. And nobody come in here saying "donating is not a right, its a privilege", that's never been an adequate argument for segregating minorities.

For the sake of the topic.. definitely can't see that a doctor would treat someone less just to excavate their organs

edit on 21-9-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



edit on 21-9-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


I think it used to be the case that they would accept transplants from "High Risk" people as long as you tested negative for HIV, the HIV tests available at that time though took around 3 weeks from being infected to testing positive and so if you happened to die in those 3 weeks there was a chance that you could have HIV and it not being detected, there were some high profile cases of people being infected with HIV this way like this one.

I'm guessing these cases were what led to these rules.

As far as I know the HIV test that are used now (p24 antigen) can detect HIV instantly and so I guess these rules should no longer apply



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 09:21 PM
link   
nm

edit on 21-9-2010 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by davespanners
 


Really though, just because someone hasn't been involved in "homosexual activity" lately isn't exactly immune to HIV... they should be testing everyone and delaying everything to conduct test to ensure things like this don't happen. Don't blame gay people just because the first time it happened it was from a gay person, millions of heterosexuals contract AIDS every day; they should all be getting screened for serious diseases like this.





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join