forced organ donor status

[sanglant]

http://happeningnow.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/04/28/what-do-you-think/ i can't believe anyone would even think of doing this, what of people that have "things?" that we don't know how to detect? i'll edit post after i find a link to the vid. the video.
rest of my thoughts(for now at least) are below.


edit: already happened

[MillCreek]

The proposed law does not require mandatory organ donation.  The proposal is that rather than signing a consent form allowing organ donation, you would have to sign a consent form refusing organ donation.  Several countries have 'opt-out' systems like the New York proposal.  The experience of those countries is that an 'opt-out' system apparently does not significantly increase the rate of organ donation.  What often happens is that whether an 'opt-in' or 'opt-out' system is used, family members often refuse to allow donation, despite the wishes of the donor.  

Having seen a number of people die while waiting for various transplants, I am in favor of any legal and ethical means to increase donation.  One such hot potato issue being debated is a payment to the donor or donor's family.  Another idea is to put organ donors on the priority list should they themselves ever need a transplant.  I myself have been a donor for 32 years now. 

[sanglant]

a better article.

MillCreek, what bothers me is "the first step would end the right of the next of kin to challenge the decisions of their dead or dying relatives to donate their organs." so if, as in my edit added link above. some one has caught something but not been tested yet, there family knows but has no way to do anything about it. and well to tell you the truth, people like me. they have no idea what's wrong and there's no way to know if saving someone by using one of my organs, is going to condemn them to suffering the rest of there life. in my view, having to opt-in gives the donor the chance to think about these things before hand. i know i would have checked that box before, but won i made sure it was marked no the last time i had my DL renewed. or why would i try to put more people in my hell, just when i was getting out?

[MillCreek]

^^^ Are you referring to the possibility of an organ donation transmitting a disease?  Organs are tested up the wazoo, but there have indeed been cases of disease transmission by organ transplant.  If family is available, they are asked if the donor has any significant medical history or any risk factors for various diseases.  Depending on the need for the organ, sometimes a choice is made to use it despite the possibility or actuality of disease transmission.  

If I was dying and needed a heart, and a donor organ was offered to me with the possibility that the donor had hepatitis, for example, I would take it.  

Even if a donor is unsuitable to provide solid organs, often items like skin, bone and corneas can still be used.  My philosophy is that once I am dead, I want to be stripped for any parts that can be helpful to someone else.  I have made sure to let my family know of my wishes in this regard.

[MicroBalrog]

For a variety of personal and moral reasons, I do not have a donor card. If such a law existed where I lived, I would opt-out.

[S. Williamson]

Heck, hollow me out.  Not like I'm using them anymore anyway...  

In my will, though, it is specifically stated that I do not be embalmed (aside from whatever stuffing they use after my hollowing, if there is going to be a viewing/open casket service).  Direct cremation only.

Ashes to be released into Galway Bay at sunset.

[lupinus]

They can have everything with the exception of my eyes.

I want those in a pickle jar on top of my urn 

[Sergeant Bob]

I personally don't care if they remove all my parts after I'm gone however, that is my decision, not theirs.

[sanglant]

MillCreek, let's say it's a little more then hepatitis. let's say you'll have headaches that nothing less then oxi will touch for the rest of your life. you'll be unable to go outside without a hat and dark sun glasses. a storm going through will mean your in bed in a dark room with blacked out windows, you can't concentrate on anything for more than 30 minutes at a time, with out making it so bad it takes a day or too to get back to where you were at. and the drugs only work for a few months at a time? oh and there's no test that will show it before the transplant. still want that patient added to the donor rolls without having a chance to consider it? it took 2 times through getting my DL with it checked before i realized just what it would be doing to someone. all i'm after, is to have a reason for people to think it through before hand. and opt-in has more agreeing to it simply because they don't have to think about it. i suspect the real reason for this law, is a democrat having his child saved by a transplant and jumping in to "do something" with no thought to the outcome.
oh and to the healthy donors, think you. and no i won't be receiving anything related to this post. refusing treatment i'm close to.

[MillCreek]

^^^ Absolutely.  The clinical scenario you describe above is most likely not due to anything transmissible by bacteria, viruses or prions.   Has a qualified physician advised you not to donate blood, semen, tissue or organs as a result of this condition as substantiated by the results of diagnostic tests or medical history?  If not, then you are probably good to go as a donor. 

[MillCreek]

I have not seen the actual text of the proposed New York law.  But putting on my healthcare risk management hat for a moment, if they are removing the ability of the family to refuse organ donation, then the physician and hospital need to be immunized against liability for removing the organs. 

Otherwise, if there is no immunity, and the family threatens to sue the physician/hospital, most healthcare facilities will not remove the organs.  It is not worth the cost and hassle of a lawsuit.  So if the intent of the 'opt-out' law is to increase donation, I hope the folks in Albany keep the immunity issue in mind. 

[sanglant]

i'm just not willing to risk it. there's nothing that shows up in mri's cat's x-rays, etc. they really have no idea what it is. i can not gamble with Someone Else's life.

[Leatherneck]

One such hot potato issue being debated is a payment to the donor or donor's family.

I wonder how that would work?

TC

[sanglant]

a u-haul behind the hearse? i plan on having one rented, and hauled behind me on that ride just for fun.

[MillCreek]

I wonder how that would work?

TC

A payment to the living donor who gives a kidney or lobe of the liver.

[Brad Johnson]

The proposed law does not require mandatory organ donation.  The proposal is that rather than signing a consent form allowing organ donation, you would have to sign a consent form refusing organ donation.   

Which is, by definition, de facto consent FOR donation.  Don't sign the form and your organs are harvested, under penalty of prosecution for non-participation, whether you intended for them to be or not.  That consitutes mandatory participation.

I am a donor but I signed up by choice.  Forced donation is non of the governments damn business and they can, and if I have anything to do with it will, butt the hell out.

Brad

[Matthew Carberry]

If the government is taking my organs without consent they better be paying my estate the fair market value as set by the Mexican who stole my kidney that Spring Break.

[S. Williamson]

Because this thread needs more Monty Python. 

Organ "Donor" (might be NSFW)

[seeker_two]

I would donate my organs.....but I'm giving the whole kit & kaboodle to the Body Farm....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_farm

[Tallpine]

I'm just going to use everything up before I die 

[Waitone]

I have a real problem with "donating" organs.  I find it curious that the only person who doesn't get paid in the chain that enables a successful organ transplant is the one who donates the organ.  Everyone else gets paid.  Am I missing something?  Why not make organ payments part of the deceased's estate?  Seems to me Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and others have made a reasonable case of paying for organs as opposed to donating them.

I don't agree with implied consent drunk driving laws and I sure don't agree with implied consent organ donation.

[MillCreek]

Which is, by definition, de facto consent FOR donation.  Don't sign the form and your organs are harvested, under penalty of prosecution for non-participation, whether you intended for them to be or not.  That consitutes mandatory participation.

I am a donor but I signed up by choice.  Forced donation is non of the governments damn business and they can, and if I have anything to do with it will, butt the hell out.

Brad

That would depend entirely upon how the form is worded and the role of the family, if any.  I doubt very much that if you verbally withdraw consent for donation, the organs will be harvested nonetheless, even if you sign a form.  I doubt very much that if you revoke the 'opt-out' form that you will be a forced organ donor.

Even for those of us who sign up to be donors, the usual and customary practice is to ask the family for permission. If they refuse, your wishes to donate are usually ignored.  In an 'opt-out' system, I suspect that the family will still be asked. 

[taurusowner]

They can do whatever they want with my husk when I am gone, I care not.

[KD5NRH]

I have a real problem with "donating" organs.  I find it curious that the only person who doesn't get paid in the chain that enables a successful organ transplant is the one who donates the organ.  Everyone else gets paid.  Am I missing something?  Why not make organ payments part of the deceased's estate?  Seems to me Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell and others have made a reasonable case of paying for organs as opposed to donating them.

Therein lies my problem with it; the doctors don't donate their services for free, so why should the person providing the most critical part of the process not be compensated?  Given the cost of the procedure, a few thousand extra tacked on for the donor wouldn't even be noticed by the recipient.

[taurusowner]

Therein lies my problem with it; the doctors don't donate their services for free, so why should the person providing the most critical part of the process not be compensated?  Given the cost of the procedure, a few thousand extra tacked on for the donor wouldn't even be noticed by the recipient.

Once you're dead, value is meaningless.  A doctor's time is valuable to him because he is alive.  The nurses, hospital, anesthesiologist, etc all are being paid because their time and education has value to the one paying.  You are dead, you organ is either going to rot away or get used.  The donor is the only one in the process who doesn't get paid because the donor is the only one in the process who doesn't exist anymore.  So I assume you're saying the donor should be paid beforehand, while he or she is still alive?  Well then, your kidneys for example wouldn't really be yours.  No more alcohol for you.  How about your heart that has been purchased by another.  You traded it's value for money.  I hope you don't like eating fast food or drinking soda or beer.  The health of your cardiovascular system is no longer only your concern.  You damage your own heart after selling to to someone, you are destroying their goods.

The current system is the only one that makes sense to me.  Once I die, my body is like a mine or a forest.  Resources that are wanted and needed by others and can be harvested at will.  Those who do the harvesting and processing should be paid for their efforts by those who want the resources.  I don't consider a dead body to an actual party to the donation any more than I consider a gold mine as a living being with a stake in mining.  The only difference is whether I choose to let myself be treated like a resource when I'm dead, while I'm still alive.  If I make that decision, after I'm dead, have at it.