No blocking organ donations

Remove all ads!

I still don't see how an organ transplant is much different from eating or breathing. You continually have to take things from outside your body to make yourself.

I'd like to see you to stand there and say what you just said to someone who's child was dying for lack of an organ:

"No, no, your child SHOULD die. It's OK, this is what should happen. You don't want them to be a machine. Don't worry, I'm doing you a favour by not letting them have this organ!"

Next time you break your arm, make sure you don't get a cast put on it. That would be too unnatural, and you might turn into a robot.

Sorry if this post is a bit heated, but I am really struggling to see your point of view on this one.

 

Erm, I had that conversation with my parents... I said "Hey mom and dad, I want to donate my organs when I'm dead," and they supported me. I don't need their permission to give something of mine away.

Everyone my age who just got their license signed up for organ donation. They made the decision, which is actually quite easy to make. Why keep something from someone who needs it, when you don't need it anymore? That seems like a pretty easy question to answer 'yes' to.

And I agree completely with HB's last post.

Because we know how to transplant now, which is faster and easier than growing new ones. We are spending money (albeit not enough) on stem cell research, but organ donation is here now.

 

point the way

already done, a broken arm is nothing, ive broken my arm, collar bone, the fingers in my right hand and my nose, never accepted treatment for any of them.

youre in the minority

once again, you devalue your body

im going to stop you at "faster and easier" and blink a few times, as for faster, people wait for a minimum of 6 months for a transplant in this country, and as for easier, i challenge you to tell that to the families of the people who die for those organs to be transplanted.

and as i said earlier, our skill for organ transplant is fer from a guarentee that they patient will live

 

Huh?? He is doing exactly the opposite! A cold corpse in the ground is worth pretty much nothing. An organ that saves someone's life is priceless. By donating, he changes the value of his body from 'nothing' to 'priceless'. I can't think of anything that could possibly be LESS like 'devaluing'.

 

On the contrary, isn't it quite efficient to make use of something that is useless? The organs are useless and have no value in death, but if they are removed, their 'value' increases greatly.

EDIT: HB beat me to the punch.

It is faster to take an organ out of a box and put it into a human being that to let people die while the technology for stem cells is still getting figured out. Organ donation is the immediate solution - we have it now. It takes less time for us to get organs now that it would to get a stem cell organ, simply because we don't have the technology.

I can repeat myself again if you want.

 

Bingo! Why? Because there aren't enough donors!!

 

Haha, was about to say the same thing. That type of 'you have to wait so long' argument is just... stupid. "You shouldn't donate because it takes so long for the person to get the organ because there aren't enough people donating." The mind boggles.

Shoshino, it simply sounds like you're running out of reason and are just running on BS now.

You're saying that it is better to DIE than be given a transplanted organ from somebody who no longer needs/wants/knows about it?

So you never had a cast or had a doctor look at/examine your broken bones? Set them back into place? If that's the case then you must have some very funky looking extremities or they weren't exactly breaks but fractures.

Actually I dare say _you_ are in the minority here, Sho, with your phobia. As for there being less potential doners because of this... difficult to prove but I seriously doubt the number of doners decreasing will be greater than the number of donations that now go through because they weren't stopped by the family of the doner.

A chance at continued life is better than NO chance at continued life, wouldn't you agree?

Sorry, Sho, but the argument that this legislation is horrible and defeats the reason beind the legislation is just completely false. Not to mention if your wife wants that type of provision should she die before you that her organs will not be donated she simply needs to point it out in her will that she does not want to be a doner if you are still alive.

 

Well, desecration of a corpse is, but not dessication. Why would it be illegal to dry a corpse? Furthermore, you may even need to if you died in the water.

You could try and convince the parents, but the decision is ultimately up to them. Basically the order of importance is spouse, parent, child, sibling, etc. Basically, it's the closest blood relative available. Fiance doesn't show up anywhere on the list. Legally, being engaged is just like being friends with someone.

Actually, let's take that a step further. You say you are engaged. After you get married you will have authority to make decisions for your wife when she is incapable. Say you get into a car accident, in which your wife is severely injured. She is incapacitated, and therefore cannot make a decision for herself. A doctor would then turn to you to ask if it is OK to attempt to save her life via a transplant. Would you let her die rather than give her a fighting chance via organ donation? Or say she didn't even need an organ transplant but just lost a lot of blood and needed a transfusion. Would you let her die rather than letting them give her a few units of blood?

Exactly. They don't keep an organ on ice for 6 months before giving it to somebody. It takes 6 months because the list of people needing organs is greater than the number of people donating their organs. In fact, saying that it takes 6 months to receive an organ is actually understating the case. People who need organ donations die without them. You usually move up on the list because people ahead of you die - not because there's a steady supply of donated organs that go to people who need them.

 

I would disagree with your reasoning there based on what I've seen. Many young men and women believe organ donation is the right thing to do -- it is their parents that cannot abide with the idea of having their sons or daughters ... distributed. Around here there was a tremendous number of family members blocking donations (which was made public in several news reports -- every now and then reporters do good work).

Illinois has a law like this. I seem to recall the most vocal proponents were the younger voters. The number signing up for organ donation has continued to rise since enacting the law.

I am an organ donor (though I doubt anyone wants my liver), my wife is an organ donor. If I lost my wife it would comfort me greatly to know such a loss saved others.

[ September 05, 2006, 21:24: Message edited by: T2Bruno ]

 

I think this is a step forward. The wishes of the dead come first.

If I were to die, I would only hope others could live on through me... Or at least, bits of me.

 

first of all, i need to make something clear...
i dont believe that mankind is a higher life form to which all efforts should be taken to save. i believe in natural selection - nature has done a good job of running life on this planet for a long time before we came along and decided to defy the laws of nature. the weak die, for what ever reason, if a horse is limp we put it down, little effort is made to save its life in the same way we do humans. if your injured or diseased, thats life. diseases wouldnt spread like they do now at an uncontrollable rate since the science of medicen came along and decided to fight bugs - which biologically are a far superior organism to us, weve created terrifying super bugs because of our meddeling in nature, we need to draw a line.

there's alot there to reply to, and a lot of it would be repeating, som im going to reply to the personal aspects of people's arguments:

yup

ill go to a doctor for diagnosis, but refuse treatment, and all the above injuries have cost me from a visible point of view is an odd looking nose:

done and tried, because i need surgery to reshape my nose.

no

i never said that the legislation itself is horrible i understand the reasoning for it even if i believe that it will be self defeatist, i said that i think it is a horrible way for the country to go to force grieving relatives to endure knowing that their recently fatally injured relative is now going to be hacked open for spare parts.

you know that i meant your spelling of the word, your being literal, i believe that organ donation is desecration. my body, is the one thing of mine that noone can ever take away from me, and ill be damned if i would give it up without a fight.

of course i would give permission for her life to be saved, but i would put much faith in our marrage surviving after that, she would not be the same person to me anymore.

actually the waiting list is so long because it is difficult to find viable organs, organs are matched by many factors including blood and tissue typing, which vary greatly by race, sex and even simple chromosomes: if a native white british man needs an organ it is unlikely that an organ from any other ethnicicty will work.

you may scoff at what im about to say but it is the truth:

i couldnt let my child die, so to me the lesser evil is for my family to live on without the father, i would become an organ donor and then kill myself shortly after so that i wouldnt have to live long enough for the phobia to eat my willpower.

wills are not read before a person is clinically dead.
i can picture it now:

"doctor, we need to remove the organs now if we have any chance of them surviving for transplant"

"wait... we have to get her solicitor to release her will first so we can be sure"

[ September 07, 2006, 23:59: Message edited by: Shoshino ]

 

She won't be the same because you saved her life through something that you find despicable? Then don't save her life. Or she won't be the same because she has someone else inside of her?

As for the other stuff you say, we are at an impasse. You don't seem to feel any of the regular human emotions about self-preservation or preservation of life in general. We can't have a reasonable argument if neither can accept the other's side as plausible, rational, or normal.

 

So, you're basically supporting eugenics?

 

I am an organ donor and have been for many years. My wife doesn't particularly like it but she understands my desire to help others in any way possible. I wouldn't want her to stop my donation because she didn't it like after I was gone. I don't want to be a hero but I think that I will have no more use for this body after I die so if it can help someone else then why not?

 

both apply, and i would still save her life, i wouldnt let her die even if it meant our parting ways.

i agree

like i said, i have sought professional help, because i already need surgery. the therapists were no use because they hadnt suffered from tomophobia themselves, noone can make ground with you if they dont know what your talking about, thought they say "i understand what your going through and how it must make you feel" they dont have a clue.

eugenics and what i have described are 2 completely different things, im not talking about killing people who dont conform to certain genetic backgrounds im talking about nature, letting the sick and weak die so that they never breed, leading to offspring which run a huge risk of being dependent.
but because of our genius these people now live and it leads to bloodlines of sick and dependent people which is rapidly growing and causing more and more of a problem.

did any of you donors ever consider that many of the organs donated go to patients who inherently suffer with diseases which require transplant. if they live and then go on to have 3 children, there is a probability that they may carry the same disease and need a transplant - thus by saving that first life, youve brought potential suffering to 3 more people.

and everyone here is acting like the blocking of donors inthe UK is a massive problem this comes from the legislation:

1 in 10 thats all!, its not such a huge problem if the statistic was around the 5 in 10 then i could agree that there is a need for the legislation.

its interesting that this new legislation hasnt had much media coverage, it hasnt even appeared in some of the mainstream tabloids. could it be that they are trying to keep this fairly low key so that many unknowing donors dont remove their consent?

 

Actually, 1 in 10 is rather appalling. I would have thought it'd be more like 2%, maybe 5% at the highest. For 10% of donors' wishes to be overturned...that's way too many.

So because your organs might go to a sick person, we shouldn't risk it? I'm not buying that. Letting the healthy die with the sick so that the sick won't live is pretty stupid.

 

No, that never crossed my mind. It won't matter in the slightest to me because I'll be dead. No one can direct the affairs of the living from beyond the grave. I'll do my best to have a positive impact while alive, thank you very much, and putting some organs into the hands of the transplant surgeons is the last thing I can ever do. Who gets those organs is a question for the medical ethicists, and far outside of my expertise.

 

if they are so healthy, why do they need an organ transplant?

very few people require transplants because of an injury ill admit that this is with the exception of eyes. most require a transplant because they are born with a defect or mistreat their body. dont go into cancer because most cancers are treatable at an early stage if you seek treatment.

so, earlier when everyone was talking about how their donating organs is for the greater good to save lives and better mankind with their diring breaths, now its changed to... "it wont matter in the slightest because i'll be dead" once a flaw has been pointed out to you, your tone changes. well, i dont have to worry about organ donation and saving lives because i'll be dead.. why sould i care about these people?