I thought the whole point of this was to discuss what we thought our beliefs in what our rights ought to be?
I'm looking for either a genuine negative to an opt out system or a genuine positive to the opt in system that doesn't boil down to "I believe it should be this way" since since the people for opt out obviously believe it should be that way for whatever reason, and it has the potential to save more lives.
I thought the whole point of this was to discuss what we thought our beliefs in what our rights ought to be?
Nobody's taking rights away, so I'm not sure how that would be relevant to discussion of the legislation in question. Compulsory donation would be a different story.
Except that, is this per 100,000 viable organs vs. overall number of donors, or simply overall donors by overall population.
Donor rates are calculated PMP (per million polulation), not based on the number of viable organs. They don't tend to calculate the figure based on organ viablility because (again) organ donation is primarily influenced by primary causes of mortality within the viable pool, which year on year could vary massivly dependant on uncontrollable factors such as disease, natural disaster and war among others.
Again, none of these are strong arguments against ultimately saving peoples lives. You need a more convincing argument.
Given that nobody has shown it would save lives and the entire argument that it will is based entirely on conjecture and goes against actual existing cases - where is your argument. Right now you're basically saying it will, because it must. If I must help you along with examples, take Sweden (again) who currently lounge at the bottom of the ranks in terms of organ donation and yet have had opt-out in place for years.
Hell if I haven't given you enough room to work. I've even limited most examples to countries with opt-out including the one with the highest donor rate among the lot. It's the damn SRD again and again - you don't want to know it, so you selectivly gloss over it.
Provide an argument yourself, rather than disregarding anything to the contrary based upon your own conjecture.
Hurf durf doctors are evil is also stupid, not to mention spurious and boring. As nobody has demonstrated that there are reams of upset families in opt-out countries in Europe incensed over their way of doing things, I think neither point is at all valid.
There's better than that, you can find examples of upset families in countries that have opt-in. It's both an example of that upset family myth and potential for abuse all rolled into one. There's some doozies if you actually look. I've even mentioned one in this thread, but the good old SRD seems to have kicked in again.
The only dubious 'math' posted in this thread was trying to support the anti-opt out side of the argument, I'd like to point out. Yet when analysed the 'maths' showed opt-out was better than opt-in at an equivalent mortality rate.
I'm curious how you analysed the maths, when you haven't provided evidence to support the opt-out miracle gain, let alone figures that can be uses in any form of math to prove it.
It's against my better judgement to try to displace fantasy numbers with some semblance of reality and I've no doubt anything provided will be disregarded and conjecture will rule again, but I'll give you a few random figures to work with..
Two of each - opt-in and opt-out. Given we're already avoiding actual contributing factors to donor rates, why not post raw figures.
Donors (PMP) - 2003
UK - 12.0 - Opt-in
US - 22.1 - Opt-in with request
Spain - 33.8 - Opt-out
Sweden - 12.8 - Opt-out
Doesn't quite explain how the US has a rate so much higher than Sweden, especially when it has two-tier consent requirements which according to your logic should give it less than half the rate of the lowest opt-out. Spain is nice though - sadly that success didn't come with the opt-out. Up until the 90's the line of change was as flat as the plains.
I'll do the conjecture based math for you though
UK + US = 34.1
Spain + Sweden = 46.6
Wheee, it works. and all I had to do to get the math was ignore all of the contributing factors to organ donation and actual measures credited with, you know, actually saving lives.
You still demonstrated you didn't have a clue what you were talking about. You're babbling for several paragraphs to try and save face (not to mention because it's irrelevant) doesn't change that fact. I'll just take it you've taken my correction to heart and will not make such mistakes in future.
Yes, like keyhole surgery to remove non-keyhole sized organs, I am convinced of the existence of the miraculous Necro-heal gel and have personally experience the wonder of cornea transplantation through the manipulation of the human eye's spiritual essence. I also truly believe that a man's heart and lungs may be cleanly extracted through his nostrils, both retaining their physical mass and remaining viable for transplantation despite copius booger dressing.
Was it really the keyhole surgery bit that gave me away? The Necro-heal and nasal extraction passed, but the keyhole was defining point? Wow. On those grounds you win - with the success of Necro-heal, I just can't take this one any further.
Get your double standards here. Double standards for a bargain price. That's right ladies and gentlemen, you too can have two faces for the price of one. Buy now and for a limited time we'll give you a free ticket down the side-track of semantics.
Your bullshit about keyhole surgery, that turned out to be completely wrong anyway, doesn't actually change that.[\quote]
Yeah, but apparently the spiritual essence, nasal extraction and necro-heal gel came in winners so I'm still up two.
(Really? you want to claim I was serious on that and you're going with the keyhole surgery for organ removal?.. really?.. Did you buy the gel part and only pick up on the keyhole? Nasal extraction just seemed like the stronger choice - you could have claimed I obviously still believed ancient egyptian practices were still in use)
Yeah there is chuckles, one of these people is fucking dead. Get back to me when you've figured that one out.
Surgery vs dead - no worries or regard for internal bleeding, secondary tissue damage, anesthesia and life support. Priority is on rapid extraction and access to required cavities at expense of body structure and, again, secondary tissues.
Surgery. Identical to living, except one is dead.
..What's your local hospital's mortality rate for surgical procedures?
I'll make it 100% clear to you: Living people are more important than dead people. This is my position. There is nothing inconsistent about valuing living people more than dead people. I have not changed on this position. Try demonstrating what 'inconsistency' on this point I have demonstrated anywhere in the thread or cease making things up.
You have expressed no value for living people. Only a small minority who require new squishies. For the rest you have shown nothing short of callous disregard and contempt - particularily for those holding beliefs not in line with your own.
Strangely people value people. The majority of people value people even after death - that's why there's such a rip-roaring trade in bereavement and funeral based services and products.
I thought the whole point of this was to discuss what we thought our beliefs in what our rights ought to be?
I'm looking for either a genuine negative to an opt out system or a genuine positive to the opt in system that doesn't boil down to "I believe it should be this way" since since the people for opt out obviously believe it should be that way for whatever reason, and it has the potential to save more lives.
Well, I'm not entirely comfortable with at least two people in here explicitly saying that they like an opt-out system because it will allow the taking of organs from at least some people who would have objected. And I object to the only thus-far stated "genuine positive" of the opt-out system, which seems to be "it saves more lives!"
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
O_o
How do you know that? How would the time spent transplanting the individual organ come close to the years added on by the new organ, to say nothing of the man power freed from dealing with dialysis and/or hospitalization and treatment of the diseased?
And I don't really care if some people in here don't have respect for other people's beliefs. It doesn't really impact my argument.
Sorry you guys have moved far beyond my original input so I leave you to it. However i just had to add
I am not Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to his organs? No, says the man in the UK. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Australia. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose
opt in.
Any time now Track Nine. Please demonstrate how an opt out system is actually worse than an opt in system. And if you go with people's beliefs please demonstrate why those beliefs should be more important than someone's belief in saving lives. And don't try and take that on some objectivist tangent because they can opt out if they want to, they aren't being forced.
I'm just getting bored with this line of demanding proof and reasoning when all you provide is conjecture. I could keep pandering to you, slipping in little hints and even mentioning actual systems and cases..
..but when the best answer that can be returned is "Nuh-uh - saves lives because I think it will", then it's not really worth giving the effort.
Believe me, I love that there are vehement advocates of organ donation who will slate anyone who doesn't want to do it, but who haven't even spoken to their loved ones about it (One of the major causes of lost donor opportunies - 41% in the UK). And the self-righteous extolling of the importance of saving lives, but only at the expense of others - well, that's fab too. But the real kicker is that not one person, in the midst of the high and mighty armchair crusade to save lives, has even questioned why the imbalance is occurring - highlighting the complete disconnect from the actual issue that so many of the "enlightened" have.
So how about I just dip back a few pages, pull a quick list I put up there. You can do the whole "Nuh-uh" thing without actually doing as you repeatedly ask others to do, and we can end up right back here again on the next page.
Trust, education, resourses, shitting on personal beliefs, circumvention of consent, violation of personal rights, social awareness, disregard of grieving loved-ones, increased risk of abuse, organ donation actually influenced by other factors, opportunistic, exploitative etc.
And we haven't even covered the fact that several countries already allow levels of consent, donor viability, annual wastage of viable organs within organ transplant systems, or the failure rates involved in procuring viable "spare" organs from immediate family and the burden it places on transplant systems through increased rejection rates. Shame.
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
O_o
How do you know that? How would the time spent transplanting the individual organ come close to the years added on by the new organ, to say nothing of the man power freed from dealing with dialysis and/or hospitalization and treatment of the diseased?
Hypothetically, let's say a doctor can treat 20 poor African kids each day, adding at least 3 or 4 years to each of their lives. That's 60-80 man-years of life saved daily.
How many transplants would he have to do in a day to achieve the same rate?
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well. And we're assuming that the presence of a competent doctor along with a chunk of extra cash in Krapistan would only add 3 or 4 years to one of those lives.
It's not a simple calculation to do, I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, if you're truly worried about saving more lives then perhaps organ transplantation isn't the most efficient possible method. And when you get to the point where you're willing to dupe people into giving their organs upon death (which at least two here have admitted to) in order to save lives, I'd think you'd be worried about doing it (saving lives, not procuring organs) just as efficiently as possible.
Unless, of course, you're only worried about saving the lives of people in first-world country who need organs.
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
O_o
How do you know that? How would the time spent transplanting the individual organ come close to the years added on by the new organ, to say nothing of the man power freed from dealing with dialysis and/or hospitalization and treatment of the diseased?
Hypothetically, let's say a doctor can treat 20 poor African kids each day, adding at least 3 or 4 years to each of their lives. That's 60-80 man-years of life saved daily.
How many transplants would he have to do in a day to achieve the same rate?
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well. And we're assuming that the presence of a competent doctor along with a chunk of extra cash in Krapistan would only add 3 or 4 years to one of those lives.
It's not a simple calculation to do, I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, if you're truly worried about saving more lives then perhaps organ transplantation isn't the most efficient possible method. And when you get to the point where you're willing to dupe people into giving their organs upon death (which at least two here have admitted to) in order to save lives, I'd think you'd be worried about doing it just as efficiently as possible.
Unless, of course, you're only worried about saving the lives of people in first-world country who need organs.
What are you even arguing at this point? Organ transplantation isn't the single most effective way to save lives so we shouldn't bother? I'm legitamitely incapable of understanding what point you're trying to make here.
Trust, education, resourses, shitting on personal beliefs, circumvention of consent, violation of personal rights, social awareness, disregard of grieving loved-ones, increased risk of abuse, organ donation actually influenced by other factors, opportunistic, exploitative etc.
More than half of this boils down to "It violates people's beliefs" dressed up in different ways. It can be turned right around to say the exact opposite. Until you demonstrate how that's worse than violating the beliefs of people who want to donate organs it's a failed argument. Because so far, like you said, people in the UK aren't getting a lot of organs and dying because of the opt in.
Outside of that, I'd like to see your proof that an opt out organ donation system would result in a higher risk of abuse, would somehow hurt education apparently, and affect organ donation influenced by other factors and why it would matter.
And we haven't even covered the fact that several countries already allow levels of consent, donor viability, annual wastage of viable organs within organ transplant systems, or the failure rates involved in procuring viable "spare" organs from immediate family and the burden it places on transplant systems through increased rejection rates.
Well then go ahead, cover it, prove it. Becuase I still have my three groups of people. Those for, those against, and those who don't care. With opt out the organs of those who don't care are used to help people. With yours they aren't.
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well.
Doctors have little to do with dialysis treatments. Nurses are all that are needed. Of course, they have Nephrologists that monitor them, but said Nephrologists take one visit every six months on the patients that take care of themselves.
Of course, we have to look at who will be receiving this organ. A lot of these people are in situations where the new organs would be fucked up, post haste. I'm talking, diabetes, poor care, people who don't take their medication, people who can't afford their medication, the whole gamut. This is, of course, mostly people with ESRD. You also have a whole influx of organs that may or may not be usable, and a whole scale of waste.
The best for everyone is doing a live donation. You're a morally fucked-up, loser if you don't.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
O_o
How do you know that? How would the time spent transplanting the individual organ come close to the years added on by the new organ, to say nothing of the man power freed from dealing with dialysis and/or hospitalization and treatment of the diseased?
Hypothetically, let's say a doctor can treat 20 poor African kids each day, adding at least 3 or 4 years to each of their lives. That's 60-80 man-years of life saved daily.
How many transplants would he have to do in a day to achieve the same rate?
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well. And we're assuming that the presence of a competent doctor along with a chunk of extra cash in Krapistan would only add 3 or 4 years to one of those lives.
It's not a simple calculation to do, I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, if you're truly worried about saving more lives then perhaps organ transplantation isn't the most efficient possible method. And when you get to the point where you're willing to dupe people into giving their organs upon death (which at least two here have admitted to) in order to save lives, I'd think you'd be worried about doing it (saving lives, not procuring organs) just as efficiently as possible.
Unless, of course, you're only worried about saving the lives of people in first-world country who need organs.
I could use that argument for the money spent on the FDA, FEMA, food stamps, and the proposed healthcare plans in the America. You think we should spend all that money on Africa, right? I would actually be pretty happy about that.
Hypothetically, let's say a doctor can treat 20 poor African kids each day, adding at least 3 or 4 years to each of their lives. That's 60-80 man-years of life saved daily.
How many transplants would he have to do in a day to achieve the same rate?
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well. And we're assuming that the presence of a competent doctor along with a chunk of extra cash in Krapistan would only add 3 or 4 years to one of those lives.
It's not a simple calculation to do, I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, if you're truly worried about saving more lives then perhaps organ transplantation isn't the most efficient possible method. And when you get to the point where you're willing to dupe people into giving their organs upon death (which at least two here have admitted to) in order to save lives, I'd think you'd be worried about doing it (saving lives, not procuring organs) just as efficiently as possible.
Unless, of course, you're only worried about saving the lives of people in first-world country who need organs.
You're assuming the doctors doing pro bono work in Africa would quit because America suddenly decided to pay their doctors more, because the massive pay there already just wasn't quite enough for them to not volunteer their time to third world countries. And if you have a better method than organ transplantation then I'd love to hear it. But until you invent cures for all the diseases/cancers/injuries that require them right now, there are still people dying for lack of a liver.
What are you even arguing at this point? Organ transplantation isn't the single most effective way to save lives so we shouldn't bother? I'm legitamitely incapable of understanding what point you're trying to make here.
I'm arguing that perhaps some people aren't as morally superior as they're claiming. All this "live people over dead people" conjecture is pretty hollow, because if their true concern is saving man-years of life then perhaps this is an issue worthy of being addressed.
But it's not. Because all life is not equal. We just don't like to admit it.
What is this based on? Gut feeling?
I base it on watching competent doctors, even with limited resources, save lives that the local medical facilities in the local back-asswards village could never have hoped to.
That and patient:doctor ratios from 3 to 100 times that of the US or Australia.
Plus the general idea of diminishing returns...the gains realized from every dollar spent on a person in the US or Australia in quality of life (whether that dollar is spent on organ transplantation, food, whatever) are significantly less than if it were spent on somebody in a developing nation.
I'm not suggesting we stop organ transplantation altogether and send all those extra doctors to Sub-Saharan Africa or anything, mind you. But I'm not the one claiming to be morally superior, either.
EDIT:
And holy fuck drop the "If you really cared" arguments. They're bullshit and nobody's tricked by them.
Want to get colder again. Put an end to further road safety campaigns and improvements. It's one of the biggest contributing factors to organ donation which means that as lives are saved, lives are lost. That idea may be a little more popular given the, shall we say, 'inconsistent' sentiment shown towards saving lives.
If Atheist views are to be used as a be all justification, then yeah it's gonna be picked up on. Sorry you don't like it being picked up on, but when it's the source of one side of an argument it is going to come up.
'evilutionist' - I've not heard the term before. Then again, I'm not bashing away at religions so clearly i must be anti-science and deeply religious. You can't possibly go against some good old belief bashing without being religous yourself. Obviously.
You're confusing 'colder' with 'fucking retarded'. If the goal is to save more lives, then we should let more people to die prematurely to get their organs to save other people from dying?
How do you get inconsistency from that? Please, tell me.
And holy fuck drop the "If you really cared" arguments. They're bullshit and nobody's tricked by them.
Then why was it used as a defense of opt-out?
And I used that argument where?
I never said you. Just the defense as a whole which no one refuted until it was used against them. If you don't like it, you should've said so to the person who used it as a defense for your argument.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And holy fuck drop the "If you really cared" arguments. They're bullshit and nobody's tricked by them.
Then why was it used as a defense of opt-out?
And I used that argument where?
I never said you. Just the defense as a whole which no one refuted until it was used against them. If you don't like it, you should've said so to the person who used it as a defense for your argument.
Did it occur to you I applied that statement to everyone who uses that argument? It doesn't become any less stupid on either side.
Care to quote? Not everyone is a member of Medscape.
Didn't ask me for any user credentials:
Data from the ONT, the US Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR), the US Census Bureau, and the Tempus databank of Spain's Instituto Nacional de Estadistica (INE) were analyzed. Between 1989 and 1999, the number of donors in Spain increased from 14.3 to 33.7 per million population (pmp; 136% increase) compared with an increase in the US from 16.2 to 21.5 donors pmp (33%). The largest difference between Spain and the US in the increased number of donors was in the 45-year-old group, representing 30.3% of donors in Spain in 1999 (44 donors pmp). If the US increased its older donor rates to match Spain's, an incremental 1235 donors per year would be realized. The high Spanish organ donation rates are largely attributable to increased use of older donors. Utilizing similar proportions of older donors in the US would increase the donor pool by almost 40%.
Couldn't find anything about some stuff, though, maybe I missed it when I glanced over.
Oh, and using older donors isn't really that good.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I base it on watching competent doctors, even with limited resources, save lives that the local medical facilities in the local back-asswards village could never have hoped to.
That and patient:doctor ratios from 3 to 100 times that of the US or Australia.
Plus the general idea of diminishing returns...the gains realized from every dollar spent on a person in the US or Australia in quality of life (whether that dollar is spent on organ transplantation, food, whatever) are significantly less than if it were spent on somebody in a developing nation.
I'm not suggesting we stop organ transplantation altogether and send all those extra doctors to Sub-Saharan Africa or anything, mind you. But I'm not the one claiming to be morally superior, either.
And what if I'm not morally superior and think that, for example that.
As I see it, there are three groups. Those who feel strongly about donating and will not be affected by this law, those who feel strongly about not donating and will not be affected by this law, and those who don't give a shit and will be affected by this law. To oppose this law because the third group has strong objections to it makes no sense, because they clearly don't. If they did, they'd opt out.
One of the last groups that was raised was those who have strong objections, and would forget to opt-out, and their families' trauma. But families can override the wishes of the opt-out system in that case, so that's not legitimate concern. And we're down to those who oppose the system strongly, will forget to opt-out, and have no families. And with that, I'd don't see a big enough potential harm to outweigh the gain of saving people's lives.
What's wrong with taking organs of people who don't give a shit about their organs.
PS. Being from Africa, there's nothing more annoying to me than "think of Africa!" being used as nothing more than a cheap debate point.
And the lack of availability of organs in the developed world has only led to a black market for them developing in the 3rd world, so that shortage isn't some boon the world's backwaters.
The Federal Government is examining ways of improving organ donor rates. A Westpoll last week revealed that more than 70 per cent of West Australians backed an opt-out system.
Oh noes.
Professor Delriviere said if Australia changed to an opt-out system of organ donation along with other system reforms, almost double the number of kidneys could be harvested, resulting in an extra 30 kidney transplants in WA a year. The long-term cost savings from an extra 30 kidney transplants in one year would be $11.25 million.
More money could mean more lives saved on the long-term, right? I guess it's possible.
As I see it, there are three groups. Those who feel strongly about donating and will not be affected by this law, those who feel strongly about not donating and will not be affected by this law, and those who don't give a shit and will be affected by this law. To oppose this law because the third group has strong objections to it makes no sense, because they clearly don't. If they did, they'd opt out.
One of the last groups that was raised was those who have strong objections, and would forget to opt-out, and their families' trauma. But families can override the wishes of the opt-out system in that case, so that's not legitimate concern. And we're down to those who oppose the system strongly, will forget to opt-out, and have no families. And with that, I'd don't see a big enough potential harm to outweigh the gain of saving people's lives.
What's wrong with taking organs of people who don't give a shit about their organs.
Because by setting the default as taking them (rather than not) any paperwork/database fuckup is more likely to take organs from the unwilling than not take them from the willing (statistically, on the whole).
Which is why I'm suggesting that opt-in with universal polling (and telling families to go fuck themselves) is far superior...because you get explicit consent (or lack thereof) from every single person. So far, the only legitimate objection I've heard to this is "but a lot of people would just say no by default!!!" But I'd just say that that's their right.
PS. Being from Africa, there's nothing more annoying to me than "think of Africa!" being used as nothing more than a cheap debate point.
Well I find few things more annoying than people acting like they're Mother Theresa because they're incredibly gung-ho about improving the lives of people in the wealthiest nations in the world.
The Federal Government is examining ways of improving organ donor rates. A Westpoll last week revealed that more than 70 per cent of West Australians backed an opt-out system.
Oh noes.
You know what that tells me? That with legally-binding (family can't object) opt-in and universal polling you'd achieve well over a 70% donor rate...assuming that there are more than a handful like myself who are donors but oppose opt-out. What's the rate now (of people who opt-in)?
The Federal Government is examining ways of improving organ donor rates. A Westpoll last week revealed that more than 70 per cent of West Australians backed an opt-out system.
Oh noes.
You know what that tells me? That with legally-binding (family can't object) opt-in and universal polling you'd achieve well over a 70% donor rate...assuming that there are more than a handful like myself who are donors but oppose opt-out. What's the rate now (of people who opt-in)?
From reading the earlier bits of the thread, opting-in with a checkbox isn't really considered consent, and that's why it's not legally binding and families can still object.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I still think that there's a difference in tone between you doing something to me that I didn't ask you to do simply because I didn't ask you to not do it to me and you doing something to me that I asked you to do.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Teenage clerk? I don't think that's how medical databases are usually run, but whatever.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
I guess as long as someone benefits, ethics be damned.
The NAZIs did that too, seems to be a socialist ideal. Yeah, that's right, I said NAZI.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Teenage clerk? I don't think that's how medical databases are usually run, but whatever.
Still not seeing the big danger, here.
The medical records room, you'd be surprised, is usually staffed by someone without a degree.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
I guess as long as someone benefits, ethics be damned.
The NAZIs did that too, seems to be a socialist ideal. Yeah, that's right, I said NAZI.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Teenage clerk? I don't think that's how medical databases are usually run, but whatever.
Still not seeing the big danger, here.
The medical records room, you'd be surprised, is usually staffed by someone without a degree.
I worked for a copy service at a hospital back home so I spent a huge portion of my day in the records room. I can vouch for this.
Posts
Nobody's taking rights away, so I'm not sure how that would be relevant to discussion of the legislation in question. Compulsory donation would be a different story.
Donor rates are calculated PMP (per million polulation), not based on the number of viable organs. They don't tend to calculate the figure based on organ viablility because (again) organ donation is primarily influenced by primary causes of mortality within the viable pool, which year on year could vary massivly dependant on uncontrollable factors such as disease, natural disaster and war among others.
Keeping it short - PMP.
Given that nobody has shown it would save lives and the entire argument that it will is based entirely on conjecture and goes against actual existing cases - where is your argument. Right now you're basically saying it will, because it must. If I must help you along with examples, take Sweden (again) who currently lounge at the bottom of the ranks in terms of organ donation and yet have had opt-out in place for years.
Hell if I haven't given you enough room to work. I've even limited most examples to countries with opt-out including the one with the highest donor rate among the lot. It's the damn SRD again and again - you don't want to know it, so you selectivly gloss over it.
Provide an argument yourself, rather than disregarding anything to the contrary based upon your own conjecture.
There's better than that, you can find examples of upset families in countries that have opt-in. It's both an example of that upset family myth and potential for abuse all rolled into one. There's some doozies if you actually look. I've even mentioned one in this thread, but the good old SRD seems to have kicked in again.
I'm curious how you analysed the maths, when you haven't provided evidence to support the opt-out miracle gain, let alone figures that can be uses in any form of math to prove it.
It's against my better judgement to try to displace fantasy numbers with some semblance of reality and I've no doubt anything provided will be disregarded and conjecture will rule again, but I'll give you a few random figures to work with..
Two of each - opt-in and opt-out. Given we're already avoiding actual contributing factors to donor rates, why not post raw figures.
Donors (PMP) - 2003
UK - 12.0 - Opt-in
US - 22.1 - Opt-in with request
Spain - 33.8 - Opt-out
Sweden - 12.8 - Opt-out
Doesn't quite explain how the US has a rate so much higher than Sweden, especially when it has two-tier consent requirements which according to your logic should give it less than half the rate of the lowest opt-out. Spain is nice though - sadly that success didn't come with the opt-out. Up until the 90's the line of change was as flat as the plains.
I'll do the conjecture based math for you though
UK + US = 34.1
Spain + Sweden = 46.6
Wheee, it works. and all I had to do to get the math was ignore all of the contributing factors to organ donation and actual measures credited with, you know, actually saving lives.
Because I've already pointed out that the money and doctor-hours spent on organ transplantation could probably save more man-years of precious, precious life if spent elsewhere, so pretending it's some "live people vs. dead people" morality thing is just a bit disingenuous.
How do you know that? How would the time spent transplanting the individual organ come close to the years added on by the new organ, to say nothing of the man power freed from dealing with dialysis and/or hospitalization and treatment of the diseased?
And I don't really care if some people in here don't have respect for other people's beliefs. It doesn't really impact my argument.
I am not Andrew Ryan, and I'm here to ask you a question: Is a man not entitled to his organs? No, says the man in the UK. It belongs to the poor. No, says the man in the Vatican. It belongs to God. No, says the man in Australia. It belongs to everyone. I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose
opt in.
I'm just getting bored with this line of demanding proof and reasoning when all you provide is conjecture. I could keep pandering to you, slipping in little hints and even mentioning actual systems and cases..
..but when the best answer that can be returned is "Nuh-uh - saves lives because I think it will", then it's not really worth giving the effort.
Believe me, I love that there are vehement advocates of organ donation who will slate anyone who doesn't want to do it, but who haven't even spoken to their loved ones about it (One of the major causes of lost donor opportunies - 41% in the UK). And the self-righteous extolling of the importance of saving lives, but only at the expense of others - well, that's fab too. But the real kicker is that not one person, in the midst of the high and mighty armchair crusade to save lives, has even questioned why the imbalance is occurring - highlighting the complete disconnect from the actual issue that so many of the "enlightened" have.
So how about I just dip back a few pages, pull a quick list I put up there. You can do the whole "Nuh-uh" thing without actually doing as you repeatedly ask others to do, and we can end up right back here again on the next page.
And we haven't even covered the fact that several countries already allow levels of consent, donor viability, annual wastage of viable organs within organ transplant systems, or the failure rates involved in procuring viable "spare" organs from immediate family and the burden it places on transplant systems through increased rejection rates. Shame.
All. Together. Now. "Nuh-uh"
This covers some of it:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/461788
Hypothetically, let's say a doctor can treat 20 poor African kids each day, adding at least 3 or 4 years to each of their lives. That's 60-80 man-years of life saved daily.
How many transplants would he have to do in a day to achieve the same rate?
Of course, you're right that you'd have to account for doctor-hours freed up by getting people off of dialysis and what not. Then again, you'd also have to account for organ rejection as well. And we're assuming that the presence of a competent doctor along with a chunk of extra cash in Krapistan would only add 3 or 4 years to one of those lives.
It's not a simple calculation to do, I'm just suggesting that maybe, just maybe, if you're truly worried about saving more lives then perhaps organ transplantation isn't the most efficient possible method. And when you get to the point where you're willing to dupe people into giving their organs upon death (which at least two here have admitted to) in order to save lives, I'd think you'd be worried about doing it (saving lives, not procuring organs) just as efficiently as possible.
Unless, of course, you're only worried about saving the lives of people in first-world country who need organs.
What is this based on? Gut feeling?
What are you even arguing at this point? Organ transplantation isn't the single most effective way to save lives so we shouldn't bother? I'm legitamitely incapable of understanding what point you're trying to make here.
Outside of that, I'd like to see your proof that an opt out organ donation system would result in a higher risk of abuse, would somehow hurt education apparently, and affect organ donation influenced by other factors and why it would matter.
Well then go ahead, cover it, prove it. Becuase I still have my three groups of people. Those for, those against, and those who don't care. With opt out the organs of those who don't care are used to help people. With yours they aren't.
Doctors have little to do with dialysis treatments. Nurses are all that are needed. Of course, they have Nephrologists that monitor them, but said Nephrologists take one visit every six months on the patients that take care of themselves.
Of course, we have to look at who will be receiving this organ. A lot of these people are in situations where the new organs would be fucked up, post haste. I'm talking, diabetes, poor care, people who don't take their medication, people who can't afford their medication, the whole gamut. This is, of course, mostly people with ESRD. You also have a whole influx of organs that may or may not be usable, and a whole scale of waste.
The best for everyone is doing a live donation. You're a morally fucked-up, loser if you don't.
I could use that argument for the money spent on the FDA, FEMA, food stamps, and the proposed healthcare plans in the America. You think we should spend all that money on Africa, right? I would actually be pretty happy about that.
Then why was it used as a defense of opt-out?
Edit:
Just one of them.
I'm arguing that perhaps some people aren't as morally superior as they're claiming. All this "live people over dead people" conjecture is pretty hollow, because if their true concern is saving man-years of life then perhaps this is an issue worthy of being addressed.
But it's not. Because all life is not equal. We just don't like to admit it.
I base it on watching competent doctors, even with limited resources, save lives that the local medical facilities in the local back-asswards village could never have hoped to.
That and patient:doctor ratios from 3 to 100 times that of the US or Australia.
Plus the general idea of diminishing returns...the gains realized from every dollar spent on a person in the US or Australia in quality of life (whether that dollar is spent on organ transplantation, food, whatever) are significantly less than if it were spent on somebody in a developing nation.
I'm not suggesting we stop organ transplantation altogether and send all those extra doctors to Sub-Saharan Africa or anything, mind you. But I'm not the one claiming to be morally superior, either.
EDIT:
ZING!
How do you get inconsistency from that? Please, tell me.
I never said you. Just the defense as a whole which no one refuted until it was used against them. If you don't like it, you should've said so to the person who used it as a defense for your argument.
Didn't ask me for any user credentials:
Couldn't find anything about some stuff, though, maybe I missed it when I glanced over.
Oh, and using older donors isn't really that good.
And what if I'm not morally superior and think that, for example that.
What's wrong with taking organs of people who don't give a shit about their organs.
PS. Being from Africa, there's nothing more annoying to me than "think of Africa!" being used as nothing more than a cheap debate point.
And the lack of availability of organs in the developed world has only led to a black market for them developing in the 3rd world, so that shortage isn't some boon the world's backwaters.
Oh noes.
More money could mean more lives saved on the long-term, right? I guess it's possible.
http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=158&ContentID=74728
Because by setting the default as taking them (rather than not) any paperwork/database fuckup is more likely to take organs from the unwilling than not take them from the willing (statistically, on the whole).
Which is why I'm suggesting that opt-in with universal polling (and telling families to go fuck themselves) is far superior...because you get explicit consent (or lack thereof) from every single person. So far, the only legitimate objection I've heard to this is "but a lot of people would just say no by default!!!" But I'd just say that that's their right.
Well I find few things more annoying than people acting like they're Mother Theresa because they're incredibly gung-ho about improving the lives of people in the wealthiest nations in the world.
You know what that tells me? That with legally-binding (family can't object) opt-in and universal polling you'd achieve well over a 70% donor rate...assuming that there are more than a handful like myself who are donors but oppose opt-out. What's the rate now (of people who opt-in)?
From reading the earlier bits of the thread, opting-in with a checkbox isn't really considered consent, and that's why it's not legally binding and families can still object.
And paperwork fuckups are a part of every program ever. I'm not seeing how the dangers here are any greater than other programs. I'd argue that they're much less likely to do any harm to the person subject to the fuckup.
Oh no, said person opted-out but fuck if we didn't already transplant his organs. That teenage data-entry clerk must not have done it right.
Did this person sign consent for organ transplant? No? Okay.
Still a fuckup, but it's at the cost of someone's consent. It'll happen, and with opt-in you don't mandate the risk.
Oh no this person is going to die unless he gets he gets a new organ. We've got a suitable donor here but did he consent? We don't know, we'd better leave it then. Oh wait the guys dead and it turns out he did consent to organ donorhood.
Note that with this potential fuckup, unlike yours, someone dies.
Teenage clerk? I don't think that's how medical databases are usually run, but whatever.
Still not seeing the big danger, here.
I guess as long as someone benefits, ethics be damned.
The NAZIs did that too, seems to be a socialist ideal. Yeah, that's right, I said NAZI.
The medical records room, you'd be surprised, is usually staffed by someone without a degree.
Nazis haven't stopped me from wearing Hugo Boss.