Am I a Jerk for Revoking Organ Donor Status?

[Niggle]

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

You were ready to condemn my "logic" based on your uninformed speculation and now you ask me for supporting citations? I've worked in health care for more than 35 years. I believe I know the difference between the movie version of what goes on and what really goes on in a hospital surrounding organ donation.

Use your common sense. How much does a hospital make off a chronically ill patient in organ failure? How much does a hospital make keeping that brain dead patient on life support a few extra days or weeks?

Compare that to what the hospital would earn from the surgery involved in a transplant. With the exception of bone marrow transplants that keep a person in the hospital for a month or more, a successful transplant patient will spend a few hours in the OR, a couple days in ICU, a couple more on a med-surge unit and be discharged.

Which do you think of those two scenarios there might be more profit?

My mother had a liver transplant. I don't recall any of the transplant patients getting out that soon (except maybe kidney transplants). The average stay for a liver transplant was about 3 months, the last couple of weeks of it in a kind of "halfway house" in the city where they taught the patient how to manage medication and necessary lifestyle changes. My mother had multiple complications and was in the hospital for 5 months.

I'm an organ donor. At least I know my father won't argue.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Yes, you did.


Organ donation is a no-brainer.

...SNIP...

Well I've always assumed that was the case...

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Yes, you did.


Organ donation is a no-brainer.

No.
It's a choice.


As it happens, it's one I choose not to make, though I have been a blood donor for many years.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

I think the organ transplant scenario leads to an order of magnitude more profit.

Can you argue against that? In the link I provided -- which is NOT a woo link -- you can just sum up the various procedures and see that from a single healthy brain dead body you can get well over 3 million dollars worth of hospital bills.

How much can you get from a guy who was brought in on life support after a car accident? Assuming he doesn't need any organs transplanted *into* him, of course.

http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/...plantation.asp

I think you have odd ideas about maintaining the life of someone on life support.

Hospital beds are expensive.

Medical care is expensive.

While it may not take a lot of money to maintain someone in a vegetative state, that is not where the issue is.

Medical care in the US is ridiculously expensive. If it costs ~ £ 30, 000 per year to keep a renal patient alive, it will probably cost twice that amount to keep a renal patient in the US alive.

This is just renal patients.

It would make more sense economically, (if making money is the objective), to keep people alive as long as possible on dialysis or in the ICU, this is a constant source of money, not the occasional transplantation cost.

Eighteen people die every single day on the US transplantation list.
http://donatelife.net/understanding-...on/statistics/

In a country the size of the US, there has got to be at least as many people in comas.

Oh look:
http://www.dana.org/news/brainhealth...l.aspx?id=9790

Quote:

The worst form of coma is known as persistent vegetative state (PVS). In the United States 10,000 to 25,000 adults and 4,000 to 10,000 children are in PVS.

There are at least 14, 000 possibilities each and every day to make the $ 3 million on at least 18 people per day.

With that many people in PVS, I am sure they would find someone that has the correct tissue match.

The reality of the situation is that your fear are unfounded, or the hospitals in the US are choosing to miss out on £ 54 million dollars each and every single day by not tapping into the minimum of 14, 000 people a day in a permanent vegetative state.

As I mentioned later in the thread, if you really have concerns and you don't trust people in the medical field, then make a living will for cadaveric renal transplantation.

I personally don't understand why someone would want to be kept alive on life support for any significant amount of time.

Yes, there are the one or two odd cases where someone has been in a coma for twenty years and they regain consciousness, but would you really want that?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Niggle

My mother had a liver transplant. I don't recall any of the transplant patients getting out that soon (except maybe kidney transplants). The average stay for a liver transplant was about 3 months, the last couple of weeks of it in a kind of "halfway house" in the city where they taught the patient how to manage medication and necessary lifestyle changes. My mother had multiple complications and was in the hospital for 5 months.

I'm an organ donor. At least I know my father won't argue.

People do have complications especially depending on how sick they were to begin with. And a liver transplant recipient can take longer to recover if a split liver is used because the organ actually has to grow before it functions well enough for the person to go home. Cadaver kidneys sometimes take a few days longer to begin working extending the ICU stay.

Dick Cheney who at 71 was almost too old for a heart transplant spent only 10 days in the hospital.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Cleveland Clinic

Quote:

The average hospital stay after liver transplantation is two weeks. Some patients may be discharged in less than two weeks, while others may be in the hospital much longer, depending on complications that may arise. You need to be prepared for both possibilities.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

No.
It's a choice.


As it happens, it's one I choose not to make, though I have been a blood donor for many years.

It is a no-brainer in that you either let your organs be pickled and rot in the ground or be burned, or you donate a kidney (which is the most common transplant required) and significantly alter the life of another human being.

And as it has been mentioned several times in this thread, they can use your kidneys even if you have died.



Yes, you can choose to have your organs rots, but the benefits of transplantation are really a no-brainer.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Originally Posted by Niggle

My mother had a liver transplant. I don't recall any of the transplant patients getting out that soon (except maybe kidney transplants). The average stay for a liver transplant was about 3 months, the last couple of weeks of it in a kind of "halfway house" in the city where they taught the patient how to manage medication and necessary lifestyle changes. .....

Just out of curiosity in keeping with the thread topic, how many total days/months did your mother spend in the hospital before the transplant or was her liver failure rapid?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/...plantation.asp

I think you have odd ideas about maintaining the life of someone on life support.

Hospital beds are expensive.

Medical care is expensive.

While it may not take a lot of money to maintain someone in a vegetative state, that is not where the issue is.

Medical care in the US is ridiculously expensive. If it costs ~ £ 30, 000 per year to keep a renal patient alive, it will probably cost twice that amount to keep a renal patient in the US alive.

This is just renal patients.

It would make more sense economically, (if making money is the objective), to keep people alive as long as possible on dialysis or in the ICU, this is a constant source of money, not the occasional transplantation cost.

Thank you. This is making me feel a little better about the system.

Originally Posted by Tatyana

With that many people in PVS, I am sure they would find someone that has the correct tissue match.

I'm not even worried about PVS, that isn't brain death.

So if anything I am even more paranoid than you assume. I am worried about being declared brain dead when in fact my brain isn't dead, it is just non-functional.

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Yes, there are the one or two odd cases where someone has been in a coma for twenty years and they regain consciousness, but would you really want that?

Would it change your outlook on recovering from a coma in 20 years if 30 years from now people can live for 300 years?

Would it change your outlook if when you go in the coma your kid is 1 year old, meaning they would be 21 when you come out?

I agree that keeping someone in a coma alive for 20 years is insanely expensive, especially when so many deaths of so many people can be prevented with just a tiny fraction of that money, but that shouldn't influence one's desires when cost is not considered.

Call me crazy, but I happen to think there will be huge advances in medicine in the next 30-50 years and that more and more people who approach life with the old attitude of "we all die eventually" are making a mistake. Like I said, call me crazy, but that's what I think.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

It is a no-brainer in that you either let your organs be pickled and rot in the ground or be burned, or you donate a kidney (which is the most common transplant required) and significantly alter the life of another human being.

And as it has been mentioned several times in this thread, they can use your kidneys even if you have died.



Yes, you can choose to have your organs rots, but the benefits of transplantation are really a no-brainer.

To the survivor, perhaps.

But benefits come with associated costs.

Whether the costs of transplants are a "no brainer", compared to spending the same on preventative programs and other types of medicine, is a far more complex question.
I'm not convinced.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

That isn't the issue.

The issue is whether there is the potential for patients to be declared brain dead when their neurons have not died and entered necrosis. I outlined how that can happen -- flat EEG readings don't necessarily imply that the neurons are outright dead.

So let me understand: Your concern is that after everybody reaches the perfectly reasonable conclusion that you are dead, you might in some way still be alive, or at least potentially alive?

What, exactly, is your concern here? That without your organs, you lose any hope of waking up in the morgue the next day?

[Checkmite]

The guy said he donates blood. Surely that has to count for something.

[Brian-M]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

1) I am not convinced that the neurologist examinations and required flat EEG readings are exhaustive tests for irreversible brain function loss. It seems at least conceivable to me that neurons may remain alive but be in a completely dormant state for one reason or another. If technology becomes available to fix such a state, sooner rather than later, I would certainly prefer to be around to take advantage of it. Note that if brain blood flow is measured with a radionucleotide that would be more convincing evidence but that isn't a legal requirement.

Do you realize that brain death is not the same thing as a coma? If you're brain-dead they're going to take you off life support regardless of whether or not you're an organ doner.

[xtifr]

"Am I a jerk for X" is one of those subjective questions that's likely to get you a dozen different answers, and doesn't seem to me to fall under the purview of skepticism. Even if it's something obvious, like "am I a jerk for randomly slapping strangers as I walk down the street?", it's still not exactly a matter for skeptical inquiry.

By which, I guess I mean, why are you asking us? In a case like this, the only ones whose opinions should matter are friends and family. (Unless you think of JREF forumgoers as your friends and family, in which case, I guess I'm flattered, and a maybe a little horrified.)

[gabeygoat]

I'm an organ donor. A.) I won't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, because i can't. B.) I'm not too paranoid about people cutting off my life line. If anything, I imagine they'll keep me on longer than I need.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Brian-M

Do you realize that brain death is not the same thing as a coma? If you're brain-dead they're going to take you off life support regardless of whether or not you're an organ doner.

This.

rocketdodger, help me understand your hypothetical scenario a little better. I'm having difficulty imagining a situation where the hospital staff all think you're brain dead, but they're still keeping your body around on life support.

What exactly do yo have in mind?

ETA: I mean, it seems like your problem isn't so much with organ donation as such, but with being taken off life support just because the hospital can't detect any life processes, and has no method for reviving people without detectable life processes.

As far as I can tell, you have no problem with donating your organs, as long as you are really, truly, provably, unrecoverably dead. Is that right?

And your real concern is that you might actually be "recoverably dead", but because the hospital can't detect that, and because they lack the technology to recover you anyway, they might go ahead and harvest your organs? Is that right?

If that's the case, let me ask you this: If the hospital thinks you're unrecoverably dead, and there isn't even technology to recover you from that state, what do you think the hospital will do with your body?

How many unrecoverably dead bodies do you think hospitals currently keep on site, just in case they might turn out to be recoverably dead some time in the future?

[LibraryLady]

I give away clothes I'm not using any more.

I give away books I'm not using any more.

I give away furniture I'm not using any more.

I give away money to good causes.

Yep, when I'm not using my internal organs any more, I'm giving them away. Says so on my driver's license and in my living will.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Thank you. This is making me feel a little better about the system.

I'm not even worried about PVS, that isn't brain death.

So if anything I am even more paranoid than you assume. I am worried about being declared brain dead when in fact my brain isn't dead, it is just non-functional.



Would it change your outlook on recovering from a coma in 20 years if 30 years from now people can live for 300 years?

Would it change your outlook if when you go in the coma your kid is 1 year old, meaning they would be 21 when you come out?

I agree that keeping someone in a coma alive for 20 years is insanely expensive, especially when so many deaths of so many people can be prevented with just a tiny fraction of that money, but that shouldn't influence one's desires when cost is not considered.

Call me crazy, but I happen to think there will be huge advances in medicine in the next 30-50 years and that more and more people who approach life with the old attitude of "we all die eventually" are making a mistake. Like I said, call me crazy, but that's what I think.

Have you looked at the definition of brain death?

It means your brain stem is dead, and there is absolutely no recovery from this.
http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Brain-d...roduction.aspx

http://science.howstuffworks.com/env...rain-death.htm

http://ccn.aacnjournals.org/content/24/5/50.full

http://patients.aan.com/resources/ne...01006030-00011

What do you mean having a non-functional brain?

Even if you wanted to be maintained on life support as a brain dead patient, it would be highly likely you would die of some other complication, like respirator acquired pneumonia.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1592694/


Yes, I quite like the idea of trans-humanism as well.

Is it going to be possible for all human beings within the next fifty years?

I personally think that access to the newest longevity technology will be similar to the access to outer space flights for the vast majority of us.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I recently saw a Law & Order that covered this fear. The Doctor harvested the organs of a woman who was taken off of life support, and given morphine to keep her from reacting, since she was presumably still alive.

This gives an obvious scenario of what could happen by remaining on the donor list, being one of the very small number on life support that remains alive after being taken off, has no family there to verify that you are no longer alive, and if the Doctor wants to risk his medical license, a jail sentence, and can keep all the other medical staff from doing their job, and finally not waiting for you to die.

.
You make life decisions based on a TV PROGRAM!~.
WTF!

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by ThunderChunky

Yes, and I'm sure you would happily accept someone else's donated organ if you needed one. Thus, you are a hypocrite as well.

.
Don't donor-ate, and wouldn't accept one.
Mine are 74 years old... as is the rest of me, and prolonging my life.. meh!

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Thank you. This is making me feel a little better about the system.

I'm not even worried about PVS, that isn't brain death.

So if anything I am even more paranoid than you assume. I am worried about being declared brain dead when in fact my brain isn't dead, it is just non-functional.



Would it change your outlook on recovering from a coma in 20 years if 30 years from now people can live for 300 years?

Would it change your outlook if when you go in the coma your kid is 1 year old, meaning they would be 21 when you come out?

I agree that keeping someone in a coma alive for 20 years is insanely expensive, especially when so many deaths of so many people can be prevented with just a tiny fraction of that money, but that shouldn't influence one's desires when cost is not considered.

Call me crazy, but I happen to think there will be huge advances in medicine in the next 30-50 years and that more and more people who approach life with the old attitude of "we all die eventually" are making a mistake. Like I said, call me crazy, but that's what I think.

.
In thirty years you'll be how old?
And you want that condition to be retained for the next 300 years?
Betcha don't.

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

I'm an organ donor. A.) I won't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, because i can't. B.) I'm not too paranoid about people cutting off my life line. If anything, I imagine they'll keep me on longer than I need.

.
I always urge organ donors (motorcycle riders) to wear their helmets, so the authorities can have an identifiable subject.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

I'm an organ donor. A.) I won't care what happens to my body when I'm dead, because i can't. B.) I'm not too paranoid about people cutting off my life line. If anything, I imagine they'll keep me on longer than I need.

Concur.

Seriously, if I am so close to dead that the doctors think I'm dead, and my wife agrees I'm dead, and the late Meinhardt Raabe declares that I'm not only merely dead but really most sincerely dead, I'm not going to be fretting about the one in a gazillion chance that I'll wake up in the body bag and think, "Damn, where's my kidney?"

[jhunter1163]

I'm an organ donor, with the disclaimer that whoever gets them will likely develop a sudden craving for Big Macs and Coca-Cola.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

The guy said he donates blood. Surely that has to count for something.

Meaningful question.

What do you mean by it?

Who's counting?

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

To the survivor, perhaps.

But benefits come with associated costs.

Whether the costs of transplants are a "no brainer", compared to spending the same on preventative programs and other types of medicine, is a far more complex question.
I'm not convinced.

Why not both? Donation and prevention?

What other types of medicine?

What are you not convinced of?

http://www.nice.org.uk/media/FD7/3C/...orPatients.pdf

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

... I am not convinced that the neurologist examinations and required flat EEG readings are exhaustive tests for irreversible brain function loss. It seems at least conceivable to me that neurons may remain alive but be in a completely dormant state for one reason or another. If technology becomes available to fix such a state, sooner rather than later, I would certainly prefer to be around to take advantage of it.

I think someone has already suggested that if such technology is available at the time of your [non]-death then it will be used to keep you alive/fix you. If it isn't then no one is going to keep you on a life support machine until it comes along - they're going to switch you off anyway, whether you're an organ donor or not.

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

... Second, the fact that the medical system makes more $$$ from organ harvesting and transplantation than it does from life-saving services is obviously incentive for anyone who cares about $$$.

How do you know the medical system makes more from organ harvesting and transplantation than it does from life-saving services?

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

... I hadn't realized that the medical system makes money... but then I realized that charging for the surgeries and supplies involved is not considered organ marketing. Unless I am utterly wrong ( and if so, someone please correct me ), hospitals end up making literally millions and millions of dollars for every organ donor that dies... by simply charging huge amounts for the procedures involved at both ends... suitcase full of cash.

If you didn't think the 'medical system' make money then how did you think it keeps going? This seems quite a naive world view IMHO - the reason that charging for the surgeries and supplies involved is not considered organ marketing is that it ISN'T organ marketing. Doctors, nurses, care workers, hospital managers, hospital cleaners and porters all make money out of people who are ill, injured, suffering and in pain. I don't have a problem with that - individuals have to make money to live, to feed themselves and their families, and corporations need to make profits to continue in business in order to help more people. That's the real world, it's how stuff works and I am astonished when people claim to be surprised about it. 'Profit' and 'making money' are not bad things and are certainly not mutually exclusive with also helping people.

How do you make money as a matter of interest?

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

... Am I a jerk?

No idea, I don't know anything about you and it's a very strange question to ask in the context of the wisdom or otherwise of being an organ donor - almost as if you were looking for a confrontation?

Yuri

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well I've always assumed that was the case...

.
It's amusing how many missed that one...

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Why not both? Donation and prevention?

What other types of medicine?

What are you not convinced of?

http://www.nice.org.uk/media/FD7/3C/...orPatients.pdf

My sister has had diabetes (type 1) for some 45 years. I don't see anything in that link she doesn't know, but I'll pass it on, thanks.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what it has to do with the thread.

I'm unconvinced that transplant technology is the best use of available finance.

Of course , when it works, it's grand for the recipient. I'm not a critic of transplants per se.

But frankly, I get hacked off when people tell me what I ought to do.

I have taken the trouble to donate over 60 units of blood over the years, because I choose to do so (and they have good choccy biccies) .
I choose not to donate bits of me after I'm dead. That's my call. If you think I'm being brainless, that's your call. We have the right to differ.

[Walabio]

No, but only if you agree to refuse organs:

For years, I have advocated giving blood and organs only to blood/organ-donors. ¿Why should we share our blood and organs with you freeloading sacks of ****** If one needs an organ, one must be an organ-donor. If one needs blood, one must be a blood-donor.

People with medical conditions keeping them from donating blood and organs can get a waiver allowing them to receive blood and organs, but only under 2 conditions:

* If they are healthy enough, the must volunteer to help at every blooddrive in their community.
* They must donate their bodies to research, so no matter what, they will be cut up after death anyway.

We can have exemptions for people under 21 years of age, but over 21 years of age, one has never donated blood and is not an organ-donor no blood and organs.

You freeloading sacks of **** have made your bed, ¡so die in it! ¡We blood/organ-donors shall keep our organs and blood for children and ourselves!

[LibraryLady]

Originally Posted by Walabio

No, but only if you agree to refuse organs:

For years, I have advocated giving blood and organs only to blood/organ-donors. ¿Why should we share our blood and organs with you freeloading sacks of ****** If one needs an organ, one must be an organ-donor. If one needs blood, one must be a blood-donor.

People with medical conditions keeping them from donating blood and organs can get a waiver allowing them to receive blood and organs, but only under 2 conditions:

* If they are healthy enough, the must volunteer to help at every blooddrive in their community.
* They must donate their bodies to research, so no matter what, they will be cut up after death anyway.

We can have exemptions for people under 21 years of age, but over 21 years of age, one has never donated blood and is not an organ-donor no blood and organs.

You freeloading sacks of **** have made your bed, ¡so die in it! ¡We blood/organ-donors shall keep our organs and blood for children and ourselves!

Oddly, I believe that even freeloading sacks of **** deserve to live.

[Checkmite]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

Meaningful question.

What do you mean by it?

Who's counting?

What I mean is, some people are completely non-hesitant to call the OP a jerk for not being an organ donor and saving lives. Yet he indicates he donates blood which also saves lives; in fact, blood can be donated regularly which can save many more lives than can be saved by donating organs even if every single usable organ is taken from your body. I think that donating blood is an admirable thing and should cancel out any presumption of jerkitude that is based on "the potential lives not saved" by refusal to donate one's organs.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

My sister has had diabetes (type 1) for some 45 years. I don't see anything in that link she doesn't know, but I'll pass it on, thanks.

I'm a bit puzzled as to what it has to do with the thread.

I'm unconvinced that transplant technology is the best use of available finance.

Of course , when it works, it's grand for the recipient. I'm not a critic of transplants per se.

But frankly, I get hacked off when people tell me what I ought to do.

I have taken the trouble to donate over 60 units of blood over the years, because I choose to do so (and they have good choccy biccies) .
I choose not to donate bits of me after I'm dead. That's my call. If you think I'm being brainless, that's your call. We have the right to differ.

I can understand not donating all of your organs, I have requested that my eyes and skin are not used, but I have no problem with heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver.

If your sister had diabetes, which is one of the most common causes of renal failure, which eventually requires a kidney, I don't understand why you wouldn't donate at least one kidney.

Renal transplantation is far more cost-effective than dialysis.

I can understand the concern for some liver transplants when we have George Best as a very public example, but there are other congenital reasons that people, typically children, might require a liver (or heart/lungs) transplant.

[Tatyana]

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

No.
It's a choice.


As it happens, it's one I choose not to make, though I have been a blood donor for many years.

Originally Posted by Checkmite

What I mean is, some people are completely non-hesitant to call the OP a jerk for not being an organ donor and saving lives. Yet he indicates he donates blood which also saves lives; in fact, blood can be donated regularly which can save many more lives than can be saved by donating organs even if every single usable organ is taken from your body. I think that donating blood is an admirable thing and should cancel out any presumption of jerkitude that is based on "the potential lives not saved" by refusal to donate one's organs.

Unless I missed it in reading the OP, I think that you might be thinking of Sam's post, he donates blood but is not an organ donor.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

I can understand not donating all of your organs, I have requested that my eyes and skin are not used, but I have no problem with heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver.

Well, I wouldn't give my knees to my worst enemy and I'm seriously myopic. But it's not squeamishness or fear; I just don't think transplant surgery is the route we should be spending money on. I had not considered the commercial aspects raised in the OP.

Quote:

If your sister had diabetes, which is one of the most common causes of renal failure, which eventually requires a kidney, I don't understand why you wouldn't donate at least one kidney.

That would be a significantly different situation, in which I was alive and making an informed decision- essentially as I do when I donate blood. Not sure I like the sound of "at least one" kidney though...you have to know when to quit.

Quote:

I can understand the concern for some liver transplants when we have George Best as a very public example, but there are other congenital reasons that people, typically children, might require a liver (or heart/lungs) transplant.

Did Best have one? I didn't know.

[Soapy Sam]

Originally Posted by Tatyana

Unless I missed it in reading the OP, I think that you might be thinking of Sam's post, he donates blood but is not an organ donor.

I think you're right, but it doesn't matter really. I was curious about Checkmite's comment that donating blood "has to count for something".

He expanded on that here-

Quote:

in fact, blood can be donated regularly which can save many more lives than can be saved by donating organs even if every single usable organ is taken from your body. I think that donating blood is an admirable thing and should cancel out any presumption of jerkitude that is based on "the potential lives not saved" by refusal to donate one's organs.

- and I agree with that. My question was really about the attitude implicit in a question like "Surely that has to count for something?", which to me seems to parallel your "no brainer" and the tacit supposition by other posters that carrying a donor card is a universal good which should not be questioned. That is precisely the sort of assumption this board is supposed to question.

[Walabio]

Originally Posted by LibraryLady

Oddly, I believe that even freeloading sacks of **** deserve to live.

¡We do not have enough organs to go around!

If both an organ-donor who donated over an hundred liters of blood and a freeloader who is not an organ-donor and never donated blood both need an heart or they will die in a week. Let us also suppose that we have only 1 heart and it is compatible with both of them. The one not receiving the heart will surely die. I say give the heart to the blood-donating organ-donor and let the freeloader die. It is a simple decision.

¿Would you waste the heart on the freeloader and murder the blood-donating organ-donor?

[BStrong]

A jerk? hard to tell from a written opinion.

Self centered? Absolutely.

Well thought out? No.

[Finn McR]

Well, although TATYANA is clearly the moral voice of all things and can not be disputed in any way because She/He is a *medical professional* (not that she/he is arguing from authority there or anything like...)

I will relate my own experience: My father died of a heart attack at not too old an age (about 50). I am not religious in any way. I had no suspicion that he was religious in any way. We were an entirely a-religious family. I've been an atheist since I could write.

I believe in organ donation and have indicated on my driver's license that I am an organ donor. I don't believe that there is any mystical connection between a person's body after they are dead and the life that they lived.

However, I said no to having my father's eyes harvested for corneas after his death. I feel bad about it even now, but that was my decision and I have to stand by it. I'm sure that TATYANA has had loved ones die and has ok'd the harvesting of organs. That's great. I just was not able to make the leap. I feel bad about it, but I don't think that I am a jerk.

[Walabio]

Originally Posted by Finn McR

I said no to having my father's eyes harvested for corneas after his death.

We have an organ-shortage. If you are not willing to share your organs, ¿why should we give to you any of our organs? We should limit organs to organ-donors.

¡You made your bed! If you need corneas, ¡you should go blind in it!