Organ Donation

Are you or are you not a donor? If you are, why? If you aren't, why? Are you in favor of compulsory organ donation, or are you in favor of an opt-in/opt-out system? Do you think non-donors should be eligible for transplants? I'm curious how the opinions will differ here. I find that my opinion tends to be pretty unpopular.

I'm not a registered donor, but I've instructed my loved-ones to donate my organs if they determine that there's no hope for me. There's a lot of anecdotal evidence, and likely a lot of statistical evidence, that being a registered donor lowers your chances of survival in a life-threatening medical emergency. This is, in my opinion, the second biggest flaw in the system. The only way I can think of to fix this flaw is to require everyone to be organ donors. I don't particularly like this option, as I think it is each individual's choice whether or not to be a donor, but I don't know of any other way to fix this particular flaw. For the sake of the rest of my argument, I'm going to ignore this flaw, as well as ignore this option.

Generally speaking, I'm against compulsory organ donation. I think I'd prefer our system to be opt-out rather than opt-in, but ultimately I don't think it makes much difference. However, I'm of the opinion that if you are not an organ donor, you should not be eligible to receive organ transplants. Basically, if you aren't supporting the system yourself, you shouldn't be able to benefit from it. In my opinion, this is no different than someone not paying taxes and then expecting the government to still protect them and give them representation and offer them services that are funded by taxes. This is the biggest flaw in the system, in my opinion. There's no drawback to not being a donor, since you are still eligible for transplants, and you don't have the added risk of death during a medical emergency. Surprisingly, I find that most people disagree with me that non-donors shouldn't be eligible, probably because most people are selfish pricks.

tl;dr: Non-donors shouldn't be able to benefit from the system.

/discuss

First off, I am not an organ donor. Not that I disagree with it, but that I never check the box, or un-check it? Maybe I am. I have no clue now. But I do agree, they're faster to pull the plug if they notice you're an organ donor given that the preservation time of organ life is fairly short, and once the plug is pulled the clock ticks faster.

Anyways, I am in favor of organ donation. Obviously it is a great tool that thousands if not millions of people benefit from other's losses every year and it is a sytem that is very valuable to the furthering of human evolution yada, yada, yada.

Your solution would work, but that would violate our freedoms. There really isn't a way to effectively fix this problem, or it would've been implemented already. The flaw is the system itself in that it enables doctors to somewhat exploit it and skews their judgement.

However, I'm of the opinion that if you are not an organ donor, you should not be eligible to receive organ transplants.

I disagree. There are some people out there that would agree with you, but I personally wouldn't care where my organs went to an opt-in or not. Your idea does make the situation better as a whole, but situations where people need life-saving organ transplants don't normally have time for long-drawn debates. I think the system is setup fairly decently now, and i'm sure the amount of people that are organ donors now is fairily high.

On a side note, i'm all about cyrogenically freezing myself, so I want to keep all of my gizzards.

There are some people out there that would agree with you, but I personally wouldn't care where my organs went to an opt-in or not.

At the very least, I should be able to specify that I only want my organs to go to other donors, or donors should get first dibs on available organs. I think it is wrong for people to benefit from the system and not contribute to it themselves. It is incredibly hypocritical to expect others to donate their organs to save your life if you don't have the decency to do the same for others.

What argument can be made for allowing non-donors to recieve organs? I'll wait for your answer to this before I go further, but the only argument I can think of also serves as an argument for compulsary organ donation.

Just to clarify to prevent unnecessary debate, I'm not saying that people who are ineligible to donate should be ineligible to receive donated organs.

I think the system is setup fairly decently now, and i'm sure the amount of people that are organ donors now is fairily high.

Each day, approximately 77 people recieve an organ transplant. In the same time, 19 people die while waiting for a transplant, due to the shortage of donated organs. (source) That's 6935 people who die every year solely because there aren't enough registered donors. The demand for organs is growing faster than the supply, so these numbers are only getting worse by the day. (source)

At the end of 2009, there were 86.3 million people enrolled in state donor registries, which is approximately 28% of our population. (source) In my opinion, that is DISGUSTING. To make it worse, 1/3 of registered donors never actually get to donate their organs because their families do not consent to it for whatever reason. (source) 28 - 28*(1/3) = ~18.5%.

No matter how you look at it, people who aren't helping fix the problem are being saved by the system while people who ARE helping fix the problem are dying on the waiting list. That is fundamentally wrong, in my opinion.

Ya America is disgustingly selfish. I read something before I was discharged from the Army about how in most other countries the citizens seem to have a collective responsibility - or at least they act as such. That is to say, if someone needs help, even a stranger, there is more likely a chance they would find it there rather than here in America. Not sure what it is or why, but the mentality is "not my problem." For any of you in the military you know this isn't the mentality so it took a bit of adjusting to get used to it again.

For the record I am an organ donor. And quite honestly, what you're saying about the life expectancy of a donor vs a non-donor seems like you trying to rationalize your selfishness. You act as if every doctor carries a .45 and muffled gunshots can be heard coming from every hospital across the nation as the number of donors increases. Really I would have to read an authoritative source concerning the statistics you're talking about to even begin to care. An article from www.tittybang.com does not constitute an "authoritative source."

And so what if the plug gets pulled quicker if you're a donor? You want to live forever? If you're going to die anyways, and someone else could live from your organs, are you really so selfish as to say you want 3 more days to cheat them out of 60 more years? Maybe next time you imagine a "stranger" needing your organs it would be easier to stave your selfishness if you instead imagine someone in your family - a niece or nephew, mom or dad, brother or sister - that needs an organ and some asshole like yourself thinks he needs 3 more days as a vegetable before he passes away.

For the record I am an organ donor. And quite honestly, what you're saying about the life expectancy of a donor vs a non-donor seems like you trying to rationalize your selfishness.

Perhaps you were high on crack when you read my post. I stated that when I die, my loves ones will be donating my organs, as per my request. The important thing is that they know, because they are ultimately the ones who have to consent to it after I die anyway. I don't see how this makes me "selfish" in any way. I just don't want to be looked at as dollars to be made when I'm in a life-threatening medical emergency.

You act as if every doctor carries a .45 and muffled gunshots can be heard coming from every hospital across the nation as the number of donors increases. Really I would have to read an authoritative source concerning the statistics you're talking about to even begin to care. An article from www.tittybang.com does not constitute an "authoritative source."

As it happens, finding ANY statistics on the mortality of donors vs non-donors seems impossible. I haven't found any numbers that would support or combat the argument that donors are more likely to die, so at this point the evidence is entirely anecdotal and conjecture. A lack of data does not prove my point wrong, it just makes my point unverifiable. Fortunately for me, this isn't even the main point of my argument, which you seem to have missed entirely.

But the fact that hospitals make money every time a donor dies is just that, a fact. The receiver of a donated organ has to pay the cost of both the harvesting and the transplant. A heart transplant alone costs nearly a million dollars. Hospitals make money on donated organs, none of which the family of the donor ever sees. With a shortage of donors and no shortage of people who need transplants, it is not beyond belief that hospitals would put forth less effort to save someone if they knew they were a donor. In most cases, it is more profitable for a hospital to harvest your organs than it would be for them to save your life. I'm not claiming that this is proof that it is happening, but there's definitely motive, and it is not beyond belief.

And so what if the plug gets pulled quicker if you're a donor? You want to live forever? If you're going to die anyways, and someone else could live from your organs, are you really so selfish as to say you want 3 more days to cheat them out of 60 more years? Maybe next time you imagine a "stranger" needing your organs it would be easier to stave your selfishness if you instead imagine someone in your family - a niece or nephew, mom or dad, brother or sister - that needs an organ and some asshole like yourself thinks he needs 3 more days as a vegetable before he passes away.

If those 3 days are going to help determine whether I can ever function as a human being again, I'm going to have to be selfish. I'm not naive enough to think that I'm going to come back after brain death, but I don't want the plug pulled prematurely just because someone is waiting for my organs. If the fact that I wouldn't kill myself prematurely is selfish, then I guess I'm a selfish asshole. Why don't you just put a bullet in your head? I've read varying statistics, but supposedly an organ donor saves somewhere between 8-50 lives with their organs. You could save 8-50 lives right now by killing yourself. You aren't selfish, are you?




Anyway, you completely missed the main point I was trying to make. I think it is wrong that non-donors are eligible to be saved by donated organs. At the very least, I think it is wrong that donors don't get first dibs. I'm not arguing for or against organ donation so much as I'm arguing against this fact. I simply do not like the idea that a noble few have to "do the right thing" because nobody else will. I'm also for compulsory military service for this very same reason. I think every person should have to serve at least a couple of years of service (I'm not going to elaborate on exceptions, because this is an entirely separate debate.) Unfortunately, this will likely never be a reality.

Do try to keep the flaming minimal. Disagreeing is fine, but you can do so in a civil way. I don't want this debate to degrade into flaming.

KA you're the kid that when the teacher scorns the class for low test grades, raises your hand and says "but I got 100" and then wonder why you get beat up on the playground. The analogy isn't entirely correct, as you seem to be below average intelligence. I saw what you wrote, and when I directed my post it wasn't to you. If you read the post and thought "that sound like me," which is apparently about 75% of the population, you know who you are.

:EDIT: and if you mistook the fact that I had hit "reply" on your post to be toward you, then I guess the only thing I can say is that I hit whatever goddamn reply button on the page that I want. If I were directly replying to you I would mention you by name or at least quote your post.

Why you so mad, though?



Personally, I said "Sure, donate my organs", because seriously - I'm not using them when I die. I personally think we should all be instantly signed up to donate and recieve. Why? Well, because I'm a controlling, easily controlled, hateful, loving little boy, that's why.

What argument can be made for allowing non-donors to recieve organs? I'll wait for your answer to this before I go further, but the only argument I can think of also serves as an argument for compulsary organ donation.

Well, let's pretend the President needs a kidney and he's not a donor. Not a likely scenario, but then again we are playing hypotheticals.

Just to clarify to prevent unnecessary debate, I'm not saying that people who are ineligible to donate should be ineligible to receive donated organs.

Right, but like above argument was swayed towards.

I think what you need to do with this argument, is just what you're doing, but break it down into the reasonings behind why peolpe aren't donating. I would assume that a very large majority won't or aren't because of religion. In one form or another, they feel it violates their 'Bible law' or whatever you'd like to call it, but i'd say that assumption has got to be very close, while the other small majority fall into the 'don't give a shit/can't donate' columun.

No matter how you look at it, people who aren't helping fix the problem are being saved by the system while people who ARE helping fix the problem are dying on the waiting list. That is fundamentally wrong, in my opinion.

Right, but how long is this system going to continue to be necessary? 50 years? 100 years? They've already begun printing organs from essentially scratch, and have begun to harvesting process. What i'm saying is that given our advances in medical technology, this discussion will not be an issue; However, until that point something should be done to persuade more people into doing so. Making people opt-in to the system will never work, for the very reasoning you use choose not to (doctors more likely to pull the plug).

maybe younger people should be a higher priority? maybe minors / early adulthood citizens should have first dibs? Not saying that elderly people aren't deserving, but that's just life.

What you've also got to factor in is that transplants don't always work, sometimes the next person in line isn't the best suited for said organ. Given they do go through lots of testing before it's approved, some of the times they're already on dialysis or go weekly/bi-weekly whatever the case may be for said organ. Also, said person needing a donation could need a liver, and they could be an alcoholic. Maybe if you've ruined yourself you shouldn't be able to get them if you aren't a willing donor. I could live with something like that, variables that is. Remember that after you get an organ they don't just stitch you up and you go about your day, our technology allows us to just take those anti-rejection medicines basically for the rest of your life so your organ doesn't fail.

There are also several groups of peolpe that cannot donate, such as HIV positive patients. There are different amounts of people out there with HIV/AIDS but guestimations are anywhere from 1m to 5million people.

Well, let's pretend the President needs a kidney and he's not a donor.

We should be ashamed for letting such a heartless cunt into such an important seat.