Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Australia] Opt-out organ donation

2456715

Posts

  • THAC0THAC0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I get people not wanting to have their body cut up for what ever reason (religion/whatever). I am not saying people should not be able to opt out of such a system but I don't get the ownership angle of it.

  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm vaguely surprised that opt-out is considered to increase the number of organ donors actually. It was always just on the drivers license application form and I figure it you're not going to tick it you're going to opt-out anyway.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    Well, one, its not anymore (at least here) and two, ticking that box wasn't considered full consent anyway - as in anyone could object to it. To get on the registry in QLD, you have to sign something that's pretty close to the full medical directive, which is a legal order that covers things like DNR orders and opting out of accepting blood products, etc. You have to have witnessed signatures and such. Possibly a JP's signature too, not sure, haven't seen one in a while.

    tmsig.jpg
  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Uh sorry but the whole someone needs those organs now the doctors won't necessarily be able to get into contact with a next in kin first just creates another counter argument. If someone needs them now it's most likely a life or death situation. I would personally be kinda unhappy if I heard a relative or friend had died because the doctors had to wait a few hours to get into contact with the next in kin of a dead guy to see if said dead guy felt the need to hang onto body part A.

    Now Imagen if the dead guy was fine with it... D:

    Also the whole Doctors might not try as hard to save you if your a donor... Any hospital that would do something like that falls under a type of dodgy reserved for Currant Affairs programs.

    Just out of curiosity what is it that religion dislikes about Organ donoring? considering the vast majority came into being long before it even came about. Can people with missing Body part B not get into heaven or some such?

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Road Block wrote: »
    Just out of curiosity what is it that religion dislikes about Organ donoring? considering the vast majority came into being long before it even came about. Can people with missing Body part B not get into heaven or some such?

    It's just a general dislike of desecration that goes back long before organ donation and to philosophers and scientists using cadavers to study the human body.

    Hell even Da Vinci cut up a few corpses I think.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »

    That's some hardcore paranoia there man.

    You're basically saying anyone in an opt-in system will receive a lower level of treatment, do you have evidence of this happening?

    My mother is a retired trauma nurse, and worked in our states only level 3 trauma ward for over 15 years.

    In an opt in program if it comes down to a treatment that might save you, but would make the organs unviable. Depending on doctor, hospital, and situation you might be denied a risky treatment that might save your life, because you checked that organ donation was important to you. I've heard of cases where a person is dead, and they stop trying to resuscitate you. Why? Because you are dead, and you wanted your organs donated. That requires a very expensive and complicated procedure to figure out what organs would be viable, and get them out of the body before they themselves die.

    You may or may not believe me, but when a person who dealt with this stuff day and in out tells me to remove organ donor from my card i do it. Especially when if i were in an accident i would be taken to where she worked. My mother, and I are both for organ donation. She knows my wishes, i know hers.

    I would recommend if you have anyone who is actually in the field to ask them. Your mileage may vary based on country, and city of origin.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Track NineTrack Nine Registered User
    edited May 2008
    japan wrote: »
    I'm always uncomfortable with this argument, because it means that pool of transplant organs available is being deliberately limited to those who have actually sat down and thought about what they want to happen after they die. Given the scarcity of organs, I think it's reasonable to say that the proportion of people who do is pretty small.

    Then barring lack of adequate education and awareness on the matter, the pool of donars represents people who have chosen to donate. The other option is forcing something on people without ensuring they have taken that time to sit down and think about the matter.

    If you want to increase that pool then you need to look at improving education and awareness, rather than trying to circumvent the decision making process.
    japan wrote: »
    I'm hesitant to raise the question, because I can see a lot of high-horsery and appeal to emotion stemming from it, but I think it's reasonable to ask if your organs, once you die, are still yours?

    Well, the problem is, if you're going to start regarding people as a collection of objects which can be owned for the sake of organ donation, then those objects would be regarded like the rest of the persons personal effects after death and thus subject to their will just like their house, car, money etc.

    A dead person in life may dictate what happens to their worldly goods once they die and said goods aren't simply claimed by the state to give to the needy upon their death.

    How would you feel if the state laid claim to all your worldly posessions after death and immediately gave them to others because you died young and didn't get round to making a will.

    Personally, I don't go for the people are objects after death angle, but it seems to be the crutch of many an argument when it comes to organ donation.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Wait so when you're dead they stop trying to save you?

    HOLY SHIT HOW DARE THEY....?

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    How would you feel if the state laid claim to all your worldly posessions after death and immediately gave them to others because you died young and didn't get round to making a will.

    There's a big difference between the state taking my earnings, possessions, things I would like to give to loved ones, and organs.

    Unless you would like your wife to keep your liver in a jar or something to which I say '...dude...'.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • QliphothQliphoth Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »

    Personally, I don't go for the people are objects after death angle, but it seems to be the crutch of many an argument when it comes to organ donation.

    No one has said that at all. This opt out system is all about increasing organ donation through making it easier for you to become an organ donor, currently if you are at all hesistant about being an organ donor or even don't care, you are unlikely to become one. With an opt out system anyone who doesn't care will become an organ donor.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    a procedure that will maybe make your organs unviable will not kill you? How does that work?

    Anyway, I'm recalling that medical science is at such a stage that we can keep people all kinds of alive, but essentially non-or-limited functioning, and in trauma cases like that, I'd rather a clean death and helping between 4 and 14-odd people. I'm not that precious.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm trying to imagine what risky treatments I could be given that would result in a situation where living was still an actual viable option for more then a month or two, or was likely to result in a consciousness remotely resembling my own.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    I'm not that precious.

    Oh but you are to me, especially your duodenum.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Wait so when you're dead they stop trying to save you?

    HOLY SHIT HOW DARE THEY....?

    Actually they stop when your mostly dead. The brain can survive a little while without oxygen, if your heart stops and they cant get it started immediately they might prep you for surgery. The sooner they get you in, and get your organs out the better for them. Because you see, while your brain could live without oxygen for awhile, so can your organs. So as opposed to spending that say 4 minutes they have before your organs are useless trying to save you, they spend them getting those organs out of the body. Make sense?

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I'm hesitant to raise the question, because I can see a lot of high-horsery and appeal to emotion stemming from it, but I think it's reasonable to ask if your organs, once you die, are still yours?

    Well, the problem is, if you're going to start regarding people as a collection of objects which can be owned for the sake of organ donation, then those objects would be regarded like the rest of the persons personal effects after death and thus subject to their will just like their house, car, money etc.

    A dead person in life may dictate what happens to their worldly goods once they die and said goods aren't simply claimed by the state to give to the needy upon their death.

    How would you feel if the state laid claim to all your worldly posessions after death and immediately gave them to others because you died young and didn't get round to making a will.

    Personally, I don't go for the people are objects after death angle, but it seems to be the crutch of many an argument when it comes to organ donation.

    You mean like inheritance tax?

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Wait so when you're dead they stop trying to save you?

    HOLY SHIT HOW DARE THEY....?

    Actually they stop when your mostly dead. The brain can survive a little while without oxygen, if your heart stops and they cant get it started immediately they might prep you for surgery. The sooner they get you in, and get your organs out the better for them. Because you see, while your brain could live without oxygen for awhile, so can your organs. So as opposed to spending that say 4 minutes they have before your organs are useless trying to save you, they spend them getting those organs out of the body. Make sense?

    Okay I'm going to have to call bull.

    Organs don't become inviable in 4 minutes.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • THAC0THAC0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    My mother is a retired trauma nurse, and worked in our states only level 3 trauma ward for over 15 years.

    In an opt in program if it comes down to a treatment that might save you, but would make the organs unviable. Depending on doctor, hospital, and situation you might be denied a risky treatment that might save your life, because you checked that organ donation was important to you. I've heard of cases where a person is dead, and they stop trying to resuscitate you. Why? Because you are dead, and you wanted your organs donated. That requires a very expensive and complicated procedure to figure out what organs would be viable, and get them out of the body before they themselves die.

    Wouldn't a more ready supply of available organs lessen this as a problem though. The only reason I can see for something like that happening is because of a lack of available organs thus making what you can get more valuable.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    Basically. Also, medicos aren't ghouls, and can also tell the difference between 'saveable' and 'fucked anyway'. Detharin's just an idiot. And I'm pretty sure has me on ignore, so I can say this without fearing a thousand word essay on how his mum's opinions on the ghoulishness of modern medicine outweigh my not caring about whether I'm actually dead or effectively dead.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »
    Detharin wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Wait so when you're dead they stop trying to save you?

    HOLY SHIT HOW DARE THEY....?

    Actually they stop when your mostly dead. The brain can survive a little while without oxygen, if your heart stops and they cant get it started immediately they might prep you for surgery. The sooner they get you in, and get your organs out the better for them. Because you see, while your brain could live without oxygen for awhile, so can your organs. So as opposed to spending that say 4 minutes they have before your organs are useless trying to save you, they spend them getting those organs out of the body. Make sense?

    Okay I'm going to have to call bull.

    Organs don't become inviable in 4 minutes.
    I've been googling this and it's bullshit. Complete bullshit.

    Organ donation is carried out when a patient is on mechanical life support but is otherwise brain dead. If they can't get your heart started soon enough after it stops then they're still going to put you on heart/lung bypass for precisely the reason of preserving the organs until they're allocated, and it's during this time that they do the tests for brain death.

    In fact fuck it, I'm going to go ask my father what he knows of the process (he's a GP).

  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    I'm always uncomfortable with this argument, because it means that pool of transplant organs available is being deliberately limited to those who have actually sat down and thought about what they want to happen after they die. Given the scarcity of organs, I think it's reasonable to say that the proportion of people who do is pretty small.

    Then barring lack of adequate education and awareness on the matter, the pool of donors represents people who have chosen to donate. The other option is forcing something on people without ensuring they have taken that time to sit down and think about the matter.

    If you want to increase that pool then you need to look at improving education and awareness, rather than trying to circumvent the decision making process.

    I kind of come down on the side of expecting people who have a problem with it to make that known. Particularly since the only real objections I can see are religious.

    Am I way off base in presuming that (barring religious views) most people aren't particularly concerned with what happens to their body after they die?

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    a procedure that will maybe make your organs unviable will not kill you? How does that work?

    Anyway, I'm recalling that medical science is at such a stage that we can keep people all kinds of alive, but essentially non-or-limited functioning, and in trauma cases like that, I'd rather a clean death and helping between 4 and 14-odd people. I'm not that precious.

    I would also prefer a nice clean death, however certain drugs and procedures make the organ unable to be removed and transplanted into someone else. These can vary per organ. If your interested do a bit of research or check with your doctor. Organ donation places a huge strain both on the new donor, and on the organ. Were they to crack your chest, and do a heart massage to save your life, it might negatively affect their ability to later remove the heart.

    The body is better at healing itself. A new organ recipient is on immunosuppressants, and will be for life. Which means they are intentionally taking drugs to lower their immune system. Making it more prone to infection, disease, and other issues. A treatment that might fuck up your liver a bit while its in your body is fine and good. The body might be able to heal the damage, or you might just die of something else. In the process of stopping that something else they might break a third organ. It snowballs.

    Anyway, as i said mileage may vary per country. If you know a doctor who actually makes these decisions ask their opinion. Personally when my mother gets the call that they have done everything they could and im dead she knows exactly which organs im cool with having extracted.

    Who knows what happens in the hereafter, maybe it will turn out i needed them after all. Maybe five people will get my organs and come together to form a weird fleshy Voltronish version of me to fight evil.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • Track NineTrack Nine Registered User
    edited May 2008
    Qliphoth wrote: »
    No one has said that at all. This opt out system is all about increasing organ donation through making it easier for you to become an organ donor, currently if you are at all hesistant about being an organ donor or even don't care, you are unlikely to become one. With an opt out system anyone who doesn't care will become an organ donor.

    No, opt-out is about circumventing the need for people to make an informed choice about becoming a donar. If a person is hesitant about becoming one, then they shouldn't be eligable to be one unless they have made that choice. That hesitance may stem from uncertaintly of personal beliefs, unresolved feelings of family members, concerns for their feelings on the matter and how it will affect them on top of having lost you, etc.

    If organ donation is low as a result of indifference or lack of awareness, then that is a matter of increasing the promotion of the organ donar program and education on the matter so that those people can be convinced to take the time to make that choice.
    under an opt-out system, there is less incentive to adequately promote and educate people on the nature of the system and thus more chance that people will be unaware that they have to claim their rights to their own body - thereby denying them a choice and forcing donation upon them.

    Organ donation can have serious ramifactions for a person's beliefs and can have a serious and lasting impact upon those they leave behind. Failure to respect that and attempting to circumvent the need for that consideration before donation will only serve to cause a lot of pain for already grieving families and friends, and will cause serious damage to people's trust in the medical profession as a whole.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »

    Okay I'm going to have to call bull.

    Organs don't become inviable in 4 minutes.

    Correct, however i dont know that exact number so used an imaginary one.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I've been googling this and it's bullshit. Complete bullshit.

    Organ donation is carried out when a patient is on mechanical life support but is otherwise brain dead. If they can't get your heart started soon enough after it stops then they're still going to put you on heart/lung bypass for precisely the reason of preserving the organs until they're allocated, and it's during this time that they do the tests for brain death.

    In fact fuck it, I'm going to go ask my father what he knows of the process (he's a GP).

    Good call. In any situation its best to consult anyone you trust and is an expert. I am in no way an expert, merely relaying the information as given to me by someone who i trust and has seen a lot of bullshit where she used to work.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    My mom is an ER nurse, her biggest issue with organ donation is that the way this state handles them is completely ineffective. Most people who think they're donors aren't, red-tape and stupid families who want their loved ones to spend eternity as a vegetable rather than just let them finish dying block most of the ones who are, and the only person I know who has gotten around all that doesn't have any organs worth salvaging due to a lifetime of sickeningly severe alcohol abuse, empty diet, three-pack-a-day smoking and shittonnes of prescription opiates.

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • Track NineTrack Nine Registered User
    edited May 2008
    japan wrote: »
    Am I way off base in presuming that (barring religious views) most people aren't particularly concerned with what happens to their body after they die?

    I'm not religious and I care, so do my family (anecdotal I know). There's more to it than scripture and fear of damnation. It's a personal matter and not all beliefs have to be religious or based in religious influence on society.

  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »

    Okay I'm going to have to call bull.

    Organs don't become inviable in 4 minutes.

    Correct, however i dont know that exact number so used an imaginary one.

    I don't know the exact number either but junior high science was enough to know it isn't even close to 4 minutes.

    Your spurious use of such numbers creates a false image that the time of viability is SO close the decision must be made right when you arrive at the hospital.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    The Cat wrote: »
    a procedure that will maybe make your organs unviable will not kill you? How does that work?

    Anyway, I'm recalling that medical science is at such a stage that we can keep people all kinds of alive, but essentially non-or-limited functioning, and in trauma cases like that, I'd rather a clean death and helping between 4 and 14-odd people. I'm not that precious.

    I would also prefer a nice clean death, however certain drugs and procedures make the organ unable to be removed and transplanted into someone else. These can vary per organ. If your interested do a bit of research or check with your doctor. Organ donation places a huge strain both on the new donor, and on the organ. Were they to crack your chest, and do a heart massage to save your life, it might negatively affect their ability to later remove the heart.

    The body is better at healing itself. A new organ recipient is on immunosuppressants, and will be for life. Which means they are intentionally taking drugs to lower their immune system. Making it more prone to infection, disease, and other issues. A treatment that might fuck up your liver a bit while its in your body is fine and good. The body might be able to heal the damage, or you might just die of something else. In the process of stopping that something else they might break a third organ. It snowballs.

    This isn't a reason not to give them a chance, though. The whole organ donation thing will only last until it becomes cheaper to grow your own replacements from stem cells (even edited ones that don't have minor defects that cause eventual inviability), but I'm happy to help out until that day. Which will likely be in the next fifteen years or so, but hey.

    Actually, that's a point right there against the opt-out. Organ transplants will very likely be obsolete practice in the next couple of decades, is it worth the state going to the expense of changing procedure? Our health care system is largely publicly funded, the money could be spent on other stuff.

    tmsig.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    japan wrote: »
    Am I way off base in presuming that (barring religious views) most people aren't particularly concerned with what happens to their body after they die?

    I'm not religious and I care, so do my family (anecdotal I know). There's more to it than scripture and fear of damnation. It's a personal matter and not all beliefs have to be religious or based in religious influence on society.

    So basically your concern for your decaying corpse decaying completely whole is greater than your concern for the lives of others.

    Because other than religious influence, what belief can you have about organs that makes you think it would be bad to donate them?

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    Organ donation can have serious ramifactions for a person's beliefs and can have a serious and lasting impact upon those they leave behind. Failure to respect that and attempting to circumvent the need for that consideration before donation will only serve to cause a lot of pain for already grieving families and friends, and will cause serious damage to people's trust in the medical profession as a whole.

    Seriously, what?

    The whole point in an organ donor program of any kind is to avoid having to ask the permission of friends and family at the time. Grieving people are not noted for their rational decision-making ability.

  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    Basically. Also, medicos aren't ghouls, and can also tell the difference between 'saveable' and 'fucked anyway'. Detharin's just an idiot. And I'm pretty sure has me on ignore, so I can say this without fearing a thousand word essay on how his mum's opinions on the ghoulishness of modern medicine outweigh my not caring about whether I'm actually dead or effectively dead.

    Actually Cat i don't have you on ignore. I just find responding to your constant personal attacks tiresome. If your don't have a point to make you just lash out like a child, find something in my posts that you don't like, turn it into a moral crisis that makes me the devil himself, ignore 90% of what I post trying to correct you, warp the remaining 10% to suit your little world view, and then wonder how horrid people like me are allowed on the internet.

    So no you are not on ignore, but if you would like to respond to something i write please do it in an adult manner. Ill be more than happy to debate the issue with you.

    I do agree with you however, i do not care whether your dead of effectively dead either. See we already have common ground, lets build on it.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    Sweetie, if you could post more with less stupid, I'd have a longer temper. But hey, lets move on.

    tmsig.jpg
  • ViolentChemistryViolentChemistry __BANNED USERS
    edited May 2008
    That's a lot of words to describe "ignoring false and irrelevant bits and pointing out logical conclusions of claims".

    DAMM
    Drunks Against Mad Mothers
  • DetharinDetharin Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Kagera wrote: »

    I don't know the exact number either but junior high science was enough to know it isn't even close to 4 minutes.

    Your spurious use of such numbers creates a false image that the time of viability is SO close the decision must be made right when you arrive at the hospital.

    I know the brain is about 7-9, but we dont transplant that. Also the body tends to dump its supply of poisons into the bloodstream which can render the organs non viable. If they can keep you alive on machines thats not really much of an issue. However if your bleeding out from a hideous car crash its a little more difficult.

    If I was kidnapped, woke up in a lab, told they were going to replace my vocal cords with those of Tony Jay, and lock me in a sound booth until the day I die I would look those bastards right in the eye and say "Alright you sons of bitches lets do this. This one is for the children."
  • THAC0THAC0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Track Nine wrote: »
    No, opt-out is about circumventing the need for people to make an informed choice about becoming a donar. If a person is hesitant about becoming one, then they shouldn't be eligable to be one unless they have made that choice. That hesitance may stem from uncertaintly of personal beliefs, unresolved feelings of family members, concerns for their feelings on the matter and how it will affect them on top of having lost you, etc.

    If organ donation is low as a result of indifference or lack of awareness, then that is a matter of increasing the promotion of the organ donar program and education on the matter so that those people can be convinced to take the time to make that choice.
    under an opt-out system, there is less incentive to adequately promote and educate people on the nature of the system and thus more chance that people will be unaware that they have to claim their rights to their own body - thereby denying them a choice and forcing donation upon them.

    Organ donation can have serious ramifactions for a person's beliefs and can have a serious and lasting impact upon those they leave behind. Failure to respect that and attempting to circumvent the need for that consideration before donation will only serve to cause a lot of pain for already grieving families and friends, and will cause serious damage to people's trust in the medical profession as a whole.

    But in an opt out system what would people need to be informed about. If they don't have a reason to want to opt out why do they need to be given one. What I am trying to say is if a person holds some belief that means they would want to opt out then they can. If not what do they need to be informed about? The argument relies entirely on the preconception that the person involved will fall on the opt out side of the equation.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    That's a lot of words to describe "ignoring false and irrelevant bits and pointing out logical conclusions of claims".

    Some people get so. upset. when you cut to the chase.

    tmsig.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    I'm still failing to find any situation under which a potentially life saving procedure would be performed in the ER that would otherwise cause problems for organ transplantation later on. I mean, heart massages? It just simply won't fucking happen. Ever and I challenge someone to find me a study where that's what they did.

    If they get you into surgery and your heart is going down then they put you on heart/lung bypass and go to work. If you crash later they might crack your for the heart massage, and even then I still can't find any evidence it's likely to damage the organ. In fact, I'm having difficulty imagining a situation where you could die of heart failure yet still have a transplantable heart seeing as how it's usually characterized by damage to the heart.

    tl;dr Detharin is making shit up.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited May 2008
    also, even if that organ is damaged, there's plenty of other keepable stuff, from other gastric organs to skin and bone. RBH just built a massive bone bank for transplants.

    tmsig.jpg
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    Detharin wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »

    I don't know the exact number either but junior high science was enough to know it isn't even close to 4 minutes.

    Your spurious use of such numbers creates a false image that the time of viability is SO close the decision must be made right when you arrive at the hospital.

    I know the brain is about 7-9, but we dont transplant that. Also the body tends to dump its supply of poisons into the bloodstream which can render the organs non viable. If they can keep you alive on machines thats not really much of an issue. However if your bleeding out from a hideous car crash its a little more difficult.

    So what you're saying basically is that opt-in isn't perfect and opt-out wouldn't be either.

    I agree, but I'd say it would be fine for the vast vast VAST majority, especially if there are enough organs available for donation and doctors don't have hope to win the lottery once in a while.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited May 2008
    The Cat wrote: »
    That's a lot of words to describe "ignoring false and irrelevant bits and pointing out logical conclusions of claims".

    Some people get so. upset. when you cut to the chase.

    I think some people think you should be more motherly or some shit and baby them.

    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
Sign In or Register to comment.