Marlo Stanfield
online poker tax cheating
+122|5172
A New York assemblyman whose daughter is alive because of two kidney transplants wants his state to become the first in the nation to pass laws that would presume people want to donate their organs unless they specifically say otherwise.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky believes the "presumed consent" measures would help combat a rising demand for healthy organs by patients forced to wait a year or more for transplants. Twenty-four European countries already have such laws in place, he said.

If he succeeds, distraught families would no longer be able to override their loved ones' decisions to donate upon their death. And eventually, hospitals would be able to assume the deceased consented to have his or her organs harvested, unless the person refused in writing.

Brodsky's interest in organ donation is personal; his 18-year-old daughter, Julianne "Willie" Brodsky, received a kidney four years ago from a donor who was struck by lightning and an earlier transplant from her mother.

"People's survival should not rest on acts of God alone," said the elder Brodsky, a Westchester County Democrat.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 03867.html
Any non-Euros here an organ donor?

Last edited by Marlo Stanfield (2010-04-27 22:51:03)

Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6725
Iran allows people to sell their kidneys. No shortages of spare kidneys for transplants.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6162|what

I still think that consent should be given.

In Australia it's written on your drivers license if you content to be a donor. Otherwise, you'll not be harvested.

I am a donor (or wil be if I were to die). And anyone who isn't I believe are selfish pricks.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
13/f/taiwan
Member
+940|5708

AussieReaper wrote:

I still think that consent should be given.

In Australia it's written on your drivers license if you content to be a donor. Otherwise, you'll not be harvested.

I am a donor (or wil be if I were to die). And anyone who isn't I believe are selfish pricks.
I bet that makes you feel better about yourself.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6162|what

13/f/taiwan wrote:

I bet that makes you feel better about yourself.
No, not at all.

But it will make some feel better about themselves.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6690|Disaster Free Zone

AussieReaper wrote:

I still think that consent should be given.

In Australia it's written on your drivers license if you content to be a donor. Otherwise, you'll not be harvested.

I am a donor (or wil be if I were to die). And anyone who isn't I believe are selfish pricks.
Donor A
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6702
I am a donor, but I didn't sign the consent on my driver's license. I'm still thinking about it..
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|6690|Disaster Free Zone

Superior Mind wrote:

I am a donor, but I didn't sign the consent on my driver's license. I'm still thinking about it..
Why not? What use are they to you after you're dead?
Superior Mind
(not macbeth)
+1,755|6702

DrunkFace wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

I am a donor, but I didn't sign the consent on my driver's license. I'm still thinking about it..
Why not? What use are they to you after you're dead?
I always think that the EMTs will be less likely to try to save me if they see that I have fresh organs ready for harvesting.
zeidmaan
Member
+234|6424|Vienna

Austria has an opt-out system which makes me an organ donor because I didn't opt out. I believe Austria is the second country in the world in the amount of donors per capita. In my opinion its a much better system than opt-in.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6115|eXtreme to the maX
Especially if the hospital gets a bonus if your organs are harvested.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/cash-f … 5832574774
AUSTRALIA'S hospitals are being paid to harvest transplant organs from dead patients.
A controversial new "activity-based funding" program administered by the federal Organ and Tissue Authority is telling hospitals they can receive up to $11,400 for each patient who becomes a donor.

The funding is aimed at securing consent from grieving families and encouraging hospitals to keep alive critically ill patients who would normally not be revived.

"The additional funding provided over the payment for donors identified in the ICU recognises the need for the organ donation team to establish a rapport with the potential donor's family and facilitate family consent," the program's information notes say.

The money encourages hospitals to keep alive critically ill patients who would normally not be revived. But doctors, ethicists and family groups have criticised it as "reprehensible" and "unseemly".
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6590|the dank(super) side of Oregon

Superior Mind wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

I am a donor, but I didn't sign the consent on my driver's license. I'm still thinking about it..
Why not? What use are they to you after you're dead?
I always think that the EMTs will be less likely to try to save me if they see that I have fresh organs ready for harvesting.
lol.  That's funny.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6139|North Tonawanda, NY
I'd be more worried about this!



Seriiously though, I'm a donor.  I agree with DrunkFace...what good are they to me after I die?  Of course, I also think it should be my decision...I don't like most opt-out systems.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6658

Superior Mind wrote:

DrunkFace wrote:

Superior Mind wrote:

I am a donor, but I didn't sign the consent on my driver's license. I'm still thinking about it..
Why not? What use are they to you after you're dead?
I always think that the EMTs will be less likely to try to save me if they see that I have fresh organs ready for harvesting.
lol

I'm a donor as far as I can remember. My logic is it minimizes my chances of being buried alive.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6003|Truthistan
Presumed consent... what garbage.


Here's a better idea,

Since everyone makes money on an organ donation let's have an incentive for those that make an organ donation. If doctors are making money performing transplants, hospitals are making money, nurses, transportation everyone is making money. The person getting the donation is presumably getting healthier and so should also be able to become more profitable in the future. everyone is getting one out of the deal except the donor. and now his initiative is half way to forcing donations.

How about this instead?
If organs are donated, then the hospital and doctors have to pay the family of the deceased an amount at least enough to cover the funeral expenses. That incentive should be enough to get a lot more people to sign their donor cards and then money is only paid if the organs are actually used.

But having it rigged so that everyone makes money but the donor and the grieving family who are supposed to make a noble sacrifice and then pay to bury a hacked up corpse... well let's just call that for what it is... thievery
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6716|67.222.138.85
Frankly it should be required unless religion prohibits.

If you are dead and someone else dies because you refuse to give them an organ from beyond the grave, that is murder. Perhaps exceptions to relatively optional organs that could prevent an open casket funeral like the eyes, could be made, but if someone needs a heart and you refuse to give it to them because in life you were so enamored with the idea of your own life while you were still alive is absolute crap. Get over yourself.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6139|North Tonawanda, NY

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly it should be required unless religion prohibits.

If you are dead and someone else dies because you refuse to give them an organ from beyond the grave, that is murder. Perhaps exceptions to relatively optional organs that could prevent an open casket funeral like the eyes, could be made, but if someone needs a heart and you refuse to give it to them because in life you were so enamored with the idea of your own life while you were still alive is absolute crap. Get over yourself.
Murder from beyond the grave?  That's pushing it...

Maybe they should institute a system like what Israel is considering--Donors go above non-donors on the waiting list for organs.
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6658

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly it should be required unless religion prohibits.

If you are dead and someone else dies because you refuse to give them an organ from beyond the grave, that is murder. Perhaps exceptions to relatively optional organs that could prevent an open casket funeral like the eyes, could be made, but if someone needs a heart and you refuse to give it to them because in life you were so enamored with the idea of your own life while you were still alive is absolute crap. Get over yourself.
Murder from beyond the grave?  That's pushing it...

Maybe they should institute a system like what Israel is considering--Donors go above non-donors on the waiting list for organs.
Now that's a system I could get behind.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6003|Truthistan

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly it should be required unless religion prohibits.

If you are dead and someone else dies because you refuse to give them an organ from beyond the grave, that is murder. Perhaps exceptions to relatively optional organs that could prevent an open casket funeral like the eyes, could be made, but if someone needs a heart and you refuse to give it to them because in life you were so enamored with the idea of your own life while you were still alive is absolute crap. Get over yourself.

why not mandate that doctors, hospitals or nurses perform transplant surgeries for free too. Because if you can't afford to pay them and they refuse to work on you then that's murder too.

You were quick to put in a religious exception... how about a political speech exception.

I guess there is something to that term "human resources" everyone is supposed to make money on your a$$, even after you're dead. As far as I know funerals are not cheap and they don't charge by the pound when you pay for one so bury me whole. If me or my family are paying for medical bills from treatment before my death and paying for my funeral expenses... Then they are suffering enough without having my body carved up in a profiteering endeavor. And those hospitals and doctors can kiss my a$$, they've already made their money off of me at that point. Reform the system, and I might reconsider.


So spare me the act humanely argument in the face of an inhumane system.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2010-04-28 11:40:22)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5367|London, England

Diesel_dyk wrote:

Presumed consent... what garbage.


Here's a better idea,

Since everyone makes money on an organ donation let's have an incentive for those that make an organ donation. If doctors are making money performing transplants, hospitals are making money, nurses, transportation everyone is making money. The person getting the donation is presumably getting healthier and so should also be able to become more profitable in the future. everyone is getting one out of the deal except the donor. and now his initiative is half way to forcing donations.

How about this instead?
If organs are donated, then the hospital and doctors have to pay the family of the deceased an amount at least enough to cover the funeral expenses. That incentive should be enough to get a lot more people to sign their donor cards and then money is only paid if the organs are actually used.

But having it rigged so that everyone makes money but the donor and the grieving family who are supposed to make a noble sacrifice and then pay to bury a hacked up corpse... well let's just call that for what it is... thievery
I haven't agreed with Diesel very often lately, but he said all that needed to be said with this one post. +1
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6115|eXtreme to the maX

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Frankly it should be required unless religion prohibits.

If you are dead and someone else dies because you refuse to give them an organ from beyond the grave, that is murder. Perhaps exceptions to relatively optional organs that could prevent an open casket funeral like the eyes, could be made, but if someone needs a heart and you refuse to give it to them because in life you were so enamored with the idea of your own life while you were still alive is absolute crap. Get over yourself.
So you're a communist now?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6716|67.222.138.85
I wanted to respond and forgot.

The problem with the way everyone is looking at this is you can't own something if you're dead.  Diesel is trying to act as if you are somehow being screwed over, despite the fact that you're dead. Your organs are owned by you so long as you are alive - when you are dead, they are owned by nobody. Your family has no rational cause to possess any of your organs. The only people that have reasonable cause for the possession of your body/organs are those in need of them for life-saving/life-altering transplants and people who want to use your body for research purposes. Frankly you shouldn't be able to deny the use of your body for either purpose, but in light of the irrational but severe social stigma about disrespecting remains the legal obligation to give your body to research is too much.

To say that same stigma holds up in the face of a person's life or death hanging in the balance however is absolutely absurd. You are not in the picture anymore, and for the law to be able to prevent that person from using your specialty lumps of organic matter is obscene. I was wrong in saying it is murder from beyond the grave, because doing anything from beyond the grave makes no sense. What it is is conspiracy to commit murder right now.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6414|North Carolina
The only major problem with this is a subtle one....

There is anecdotal evidence that when someone is a donor, less care is taken to keep him/her alive in a situation where the chances of survival are low.  It's not a huge factor in determining the quality of care, but it seems to be noticeable at the very least.

The worry many have (including myself) is that this same attitude would be applied universally in an environment where everyone is, by default, a potential donor.

On the other hand, I do understand why there is a push for donation to be standard procedure for those who need it and because the current donor market does not handle the burden of need for most organs very well.
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6716|67.222.138.85

Turquoise wrote:

There is anecdotal evidence that when someone is a donor
This is not conclusive in any sense of the word.
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5367|London, England

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I wanted to respond and forgot.

The problem with the way everyone is looking at this is you can't own something if you're dead.  Diesel is trying to act as if you are somehow being screwed over, despite the fact that you're dead. Your organs are owned by you so long as you are alive - when you are dead, they are owned by nobody. Your family has no rational cause to possess any of your organs. The only people that have reasonable cause for the possession of your body/organs are those in need of them for life-saving/life-altering transplants and people who want to use your body for research purposes. Frankly you shouldn't be able to deny the use of your body for either purpose, but in light of the irrational but severe social stigma about disrespecting remains the legal obligation to give your body to research is too much.

To say that same stigma holds up in the face of a person's life or death hanging in the balance however is absolutely absurd. You are not in the picture anymore, and for the law to be able to prevent that person from using your specialty lumps of organic matter is obscene. I was wrong in saying it is murder from beyond the grave, because doing anything from beyond the grave makes no sense. What it is is conspiracy to commit murder right now.
Using that logic you would invalidate Wills.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard