Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
some gravely ill alcoholics who need a liver transplant shouldn't have to prove they can stay sober for six months to get one, doctors say in a study that could intensify the debate over whether those who destroy their organs by drinking deserve new ones.
Nearly one in five liver transplants in the u.s. Go to current or former heavy drinkers.
If I'm ever in an accident serious enough that transplant vultures (I am checked off as a donor on my DL) are circling, then it's a pretty sure bet that even if by some miracle I was pulled through I could never be as before the accident. I doubt anyone wants or needs my 60y.o. organs but I have been willing to donate organs since I knew the practice existed (my 20's). I felt the same way then. Don't save me if I'm going to be a C5 quadriplegic or an above the knee double amputee. So, as long as I'm unconscious, letting me bleed out to speed up my death would be just fine with me.
I don't know anyone who is a gleeful ghoul - I just see people who are happily using the powers they have to deny sharing - what they don't need - with others who are greatly in need.
Tantamount, IMHO, to drinking your fill of bottled water in front of people on a trail who are parched and have lost their way, and when you're hydrated, pouring out the rest of the water onto the sand in front of them, because one in the crowd didn't ask politely enough for your help.
Now, let's talk about gleeful ghouls.
Sure. How about this:
Quote:
The Los Angeles Times reports police are now investigating exactly how he died at the hospital. The boy—though not technically brain dead—had suffered so much brain damage after a near drowning that doctors determined he would never wake from a coma. So his family decided to take him off life support and to donate his organs.
A doctor gave him a dose of fentanyl after his ventilator was removed. She says it was to ease his suffering. But a county coroner who later examined the boy’s body says it was the fentanyl that killed him, raising the question of whether a fatal dose was meant to quicken his death and keep his organs more viable for donation.
A Swedish man who was paralyzed by a massive stroke has filed a complaint against the hospital that cared for him because he claimed he could hear doctors discussing whether to donate his organs just before they gave him a sedative that put him under.
I've heard stories about them taking donors prematurely and not giving them anesthesia and having the body have responses when being cut where they had to administer more paralyzing agent... Imagine being conscious but paralysed unable to say anything as they are harvesting your organs....if they want my organs they can pay my surviving family $200,000 per organ and make sure I'm out cold and really gone before they cut.
My solution to the problem is simple: if you are not a registered organ donor for at least five years prior to needing an organ donation yourself, you go "to the back of the line", no matter if your needs are more dire than someone else. The exception to this would be children, whose own clock starts clicking at the age of majority (or maybe even earlier, with the consent of their parents). And maybe, if this new rule doesn't get enough people to sign up as organ donors, maybe if you're not a registered donor, you're not even allowed to go to the end of the line, maybe you are simply deemed ineligible for donation. Harsh? Sure, Harsh but Fair.
Ah yes, the punitive approach. Authoritarianism in the guise of virtue.
Ah yes, the punitive approach. Authoritarianism in the guise of virtue.
Not at all. More in the spirit of, "If you don't work (and are able-bodied), you don't eat". Why should someone get the benefit of one of my kidneys when they are too lazy or selfish to be a donor themselves? Many people die in the U.S. because not enough people are donors. So then, why not incentivize people? I would use the "stick and carrot" approach, by rewarding donors somehow, and also by denying the benefits of the system for those who do not want to take part. Absolutely equitable. Again, children would not be denied. Only adults who choose to act like children. And they would not be completely closed out of the system, but others who register as donors would have priority over them. Where is that not fair?
I guess I wouldn't mind it. Donating, i mean. My husband is totally against it for himself. Religious reasons I guess. But I don't think that the physical body really matters.
well, it does if you're still alive when they harvest them. My god, are we becoming china?
I still believe that it is an extremely selfish way to die, burying organs that would extend the life of others!
Your liver could save 2-3 people. Kidneys, 2. Heart,1. Skin, many
Very SELFISH, unless for religious reasons (and, most religions are now accepting organ donations)
Well the industry makes millions of dollars off of organ donations and transplant.
I'm 100% sure that has no affect on the pressure for families to donate their loved ones bodies 3 seconds after they died. /shrug/
I mean this hospital is completely selfless here. No motive AT ALL.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.