http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6558978Oh my.
Ms. Ed, the unappellated eohippus:
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-15-09 11:54 PM
Original message
Ethical question. Say there is someone who needs an organ, but nobody in their family has ever signed up as a donor, should they be put ahead of someone else who has designated themselves as willing to donate as well as several family members who have been designated donors?
This is something that I have been thinking of. I know of a family that just received a donation that saved their loved ones life. Previous to that, they had been vehemently opposed to donating their own organs. Of course, since their loved one received a new organ, approximately NONE of them have signed up as donors...and have expressed that they still weren't going to do that.
The selfishness astounds me.
I think I would like to see a clause when someone is signing up for organ donation that a member of the family MUST have been registered before their family can be listed.
Not sure of the particulars, but absolutely sure that the entire conversation made me nauseous.
There has to be a better way to do this.
Ms. Ed's probably unhappy that murdered infants can't be "harvested" for organs.
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-15-09 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think this is a bad idea, for two reasons.
First, nobody should be compelled, in any way, shape, or form, to give up part of his or her own body. Period.
Second, it's hardly the sick person's fault that his or her family won't sign up to donate.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-15-09 11:58 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. But why weren't THEY a donor before they got sick?
(Kids excluded)I would be pissed that having listed myself as a donor for the last 20 or so years to know that someone that could care less about another person's plight would get an organ before myself or my family would.
Unvanguard (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I would not be. It is their organs to do with as they see fit.
They are not trying to compel anybody else into giving them organs; why should they be compelled into giving up theirs?
Ms. Toad (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Even after they are sick they can be a donor, and anyone old enough to get a driver' license can be, as well, in most states.
My daughter registered as a donor at age 15 or 16 (don't recall whether they asked her when she got her learner's permit), and is still registered as a donor even though she expects to need a liver. No one would want her liver, but her kidneys, heart, lungs, eyes, and skin (as examples) could easily be used by others once she no longer needs them.
You can also be an organ donor if you have been rejected as a blood donor. The criteria are different - and are generally different for each organ. Even if some of your organs cannot be used, others might be still be useful.
The militant
gigolo primitive comments, but as the militant
gigolo{/i] primitive's pretty stupid, no point in copying-and-pasting.
customerserviceguy (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-15-09 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
3. So, if I'm your cousin
Your need obligates me to do something? Or the other way around?
Just for the record, I'm an organ donor, so I'm fine with the concept, I'd just rather educate people versus coercing them.
Horse with no Name (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 12:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. These people KNOW the value of an organ
their 22-year old son received one and would have died within the week if he had not.
Still, that does not compel them to be merciful to another family in their same situation.
I do not understand that kind of selfishness. It makes me ill.
It also makes me ill to think that someone who was willing to donate might have been denied the organ.
Too bad murdering infants doesn't make Ms. Ed ill.
customerserviceguy (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #6
15. It's not so much selfishness as it is ignorance. There are certain religious beliefs out there (not necessarily supported formally by the adherent's official religious teachings) that get in the way of organ donation.
Also, there is the denial thing. If I sign an organ donor card, I'm facing my own mortality. Many people just can't handle that.
These are problems we can educate people out of.
rucky (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
18. If the personal experience doesn't educate them
I can't imagine much that will.
Statistical (1000+ posts) Tue Sep-15-09 11:58 PM
Response to Original message
5. While the attitude is disgusting I don't agree with punishing one for the actions of their family.
Should we deny federal student aid to people who's family have been convicted of selling drugs.
Of course not.
Sometimes people just suck. You can't legislate everything.
I don't know why we don't sell organ contracts (not organs but contract to harvest your organs after death).
Imagine if you go a check for say $2000 per year as long as you remained an organ donor and maintained good health.
You could increase the supply 100x overnight. Likely they would turn some people away because demand is higher than supply.
brewens (99 posts) Wed Sep-16-09 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
8. I work for a blood center and donate blood and platelets.
I donated for years before I ever thought about getting a job in the industry. I'm also and organ donor and on the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry.
I can guarantee you that my donations have gone to people that would never lift a finger to help anyone else. I'd rather not know anything about it. It'd be nice to know that others that were donors would be first in line. There is probably no way I could agree with to accomplish that. I just have to be happy that I've helped my share of the good people.
One thing I run into is people questioning the fact that we charge hospitals for the blood products. Also a friend of mine that won't be an organ donor because the organs aren't given away for free. People donate blood, volunteer to help us and have fund raisers to buy us new busses and other equipment. It's not enough to pay for everything but it helps keep the cost down. We can't work for free so there has to be a charge.
I dealt with a real cranky old woman that was donating blood for her own surgery. She was really upset that there was a $250 charge to her. I explained that it takes our paid staff to draw the blood, lab staff to process it and special handling and shipping to get it to the hospital for her surgery. Insurance will cover that if the patient is actually given the unit/s of blood during surgery. We have to collect payment at the time of the donation though.
Then I asked if her doctor had sent a physicians request with her to have this done. We have to have one of those. Nope. So now she's even more pissed and I give her the form and tell her to go to her doctor and get it filled out. I didn't tell her I could have just called and had them fax one to us. This particular doctor knows the drill.
I don't usually work at the front desk at the blood center like that day. She came back one more time and the woman that is usually there had to deal with her. She claimed her doctor was supposed to have faxed the form to us but we never got it. We determined that the doctor probably did not want her to use her own blood anyway.
I would be willing to bet this woman never donated anything to anyone her whole life.
Statistical (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #8
17. That is sad.
"I dealt with a real cranky old woman that was donating blood for her own surgery. She was really upset that there was a $250 charge to her."
Well she wasn't "donating" she was storing her own blood for her use in the future.
It is no more donating then me putting money in my IRA is "donating" to my future self.
I have no problem w/ Red Cross charging for blood:
1) As you said even if the "product" (blood) is free there is still the operating cost. If Wendy's had free ingridiants they still couldn't offer a free hamburger.
2) The cost makes Hospitals less likely to waste blood (use it when not necessary) which supports the pool and ensure there is blood available when needed.
donheld (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 12:34 AM
Response to Original message
9. There are givers, takers, and maybe some who are both, in this world
The family of whom you speak belong to the takers.
And they're probably primitives on Skins's island, too.
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Wed Sep-16-09 01:22 AM
Response to Original message
13. It is not ethical to deny a transplant to a person because their family hasn't been donors.
It is unreasonable to penalize a person for anything their relatives do or do not do, whether regarding transplants or anything else.
