Should everyone automatically be an organ donor?

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

pretty much only do kidney and liver while you're alive.  Lung is also possible

And then bone marrow, if that counts

lostrib

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Person0"] Why won't you tell me if you believe in implied consent for first aid? You said that not withdrawing consent should not be seen as giving consent...so should the default be do not resuscitate? And why isn't it in the US?Person0

actually in the hospital they do check with you or your loved ones about resuscitation or any other forms of life saving treatment

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Bone marrow can be taken from living people so I think that one shouldn't count.LJS9502_basic

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.  

Lung does occur from live donors, it is just really rare

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

Person0

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Bone marrow can be taken from living people so I think that one shouldn't count.LJS9502_basic

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.  

That actually has been a point of contention for a while within the medical community.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="rastotm"]

The true problem in the lack of organs donors lies in the fact that there are no positive consequences to signing on while having no negative consequences to signing off. People who refuse to be a organ donor should not be able to receive organs from others, it is as simple as that.

rastotm

that sucks for kids

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.  

StrifeDelivery

That actually has been a point of contention for a while within the medical community.

I think they are supposed to prioritize taking in to account if the person will continueto abuse their organs. But I don't think they can prevent an organ from being specifically donated to a patient

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] I hope you aren't talking about the medical profession because they are supposed to save lives. And I hope you don't advocate letting someone die because they are unconscious and can't give consent for medical treatment. Very poor analogy. First aid is also not the same as organ harvesting.lostrib

actually in the hospital they do check with you or your loved ones about resuscitation or any other forms of life saving treatment

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="lostrib"]

yeah, but kidney, liver, lung (rare) are pretty much the only living donor procedures.  

StrifeDelivery

That actually has been a point of contention for a while within the medical community.

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Are you sure about lung? Liver.....a piece I guess. That does grow back unless severely damaged. But while talking about organ donations....what about giving it to people that abused their body? IE David Crosby got two livers I think because he abused two. What is your opinion on that?lostrib

That actually has been a point of contention for a while within the medical community.

I think they are supposed to prioritize taking in to account if the person will continueto abuse their organs. But I don't think they can prevent an organ from being specifically donated to a patient

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

that's idiotic

lostrib

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] It's idiotic that organ donars die waiting in the line while those who do not donate survive.

rastotm

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

That actually has been a point of contention for a while within the medical community.

LJS9502_basic

I think they are supposed to prioritize taking in to account if the person will continueto abuse their organs. But I don't think they can prevent an organ from being specifically donated to a patient

why can't they prevent a specific donation? Because it's sepearate from the donor list. But now that I think about it, there may be restrictions on that to discourage organ trafficing. I'd have to do more research on it

It's not the TC's job to give you a full course on what organ donation is. If you don't know anything about it, perhaps you should look into before commenting on things you don't know anything about.

StrifeDelivery

"The TC doesn't have to do anything" I know, really redundant of you to post that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=0

"Consider the difference in consent rates between two similar countries, Austria and Germany. In Germany, which uses an opt-in system, only 12 percent give their consent; in Austria, which uses opt-out, nearly everyone (99 percent) does. " StrifeDelivery

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] It's idiotic that organ donars die waiting in the line while those who do not donate survive.

rastotm

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

so only people who have opted in to be organ donors upon death, would be elligible for organ donations?

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="Person0"] Well that's dumb because organs have to match a person, but I think organ donors should get priority over non-organ donors. (except in the case of heath related reasons)lostrib

that sucks for kids

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

lostrib

so only people who have opted in to be organ donors upon death, would be elligible for organ donations?

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

lostrib

so only people who have opted in to be organ donors upon death, would be elligible for organ donations?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="rastotm"] I'm certain that there would be far more organs available because there are far more people signed up. As there is actually a practical incentive to do so instead of just being a good person.

rastotm

so only people who have opted in to be organ donors upon death, would be elligible for organ donations?

Yeah, sure. People who pay exorbitant amounts of money for stuff like funerals and coffins are pretty stupid.

Yeah, sure. People who pay exorbitant amounts of money for stuff like funerals and coffins are pretty stupid.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah, sure. People who pay exorbitant amounts of money for stuff like funerals and coffins are pretty stupid.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Aljosa23"]

Yeah, sure. People who pay exorbitant amounts of money for stuff like funerals and coffins are pretty stupid.

Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You'd still have to pay for that....LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Person0"] Not if you give your body to science! Can go to the body farm.Person0

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

It's not the TC's job to give you a full course on what organ donation is. If you don't know anything about it, perhaps you should look into before commenting on things you don't know anything about.

SirWander

"The TC doesn't have to do anything" I know, really redundant of you to post that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/economy/27view.html?_r=0

"Consider the difference in consent rates between two similar countries, Austria and Germany. In Germany, which uses an opt-in system, only 12 percent give their consent; in Austria, which uses opt-out, nearly everyone (99 percent) does. " StrifeDelivery

Seems people have to be redundant for you to get something, since you are talking about unstated premises that only you believe exist in a topic you don't seem to understand.

Most definitely, if they are clean. Obviously you wouldn't want some junkies organs, lol ..

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

so your idea is to let a bunch more people die?  you realize you can't just give away organs to random people right?

Or I guess all those people who can't be organ donors are just shit out of luck?

LJS9502_basic

That may be the case for Sweden, as there are a variety of factors.

http://theconversation.com/opt-out-organ-donation-in-wales-a-model-for-australia-15945

"Defaults make a big difference. A study by Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G. Goldstein involved asking different people in an online survey whether they would be willing to be donors in several different hypothetical scenarios.

In the first scenario, participants were told that the default was not to be an organ donor (but they had the option to consent-in). In the second, participants were told that the default was to be an organ donor (but had the option to opt-out).

Not surprisingly, this made a big difference. When participants had to consent-in, only 42% chose to do so. If they had to opt-out, 82% agreed to donate.

Is this also the case in practice? The best empirical evidence currently available suggests it is.

In 2008, the UK government commissioned an independent review of the available research. There were five studies that compared donation rates before and after the introduction of an opt-out system in particular countries; eight compared donation rates between consent-in and opt-out system countries.

The results? All five of the before-and-after studies reported an increase in donation rates after the introduction of opt-out. And in the four between-country comparison studies judged the most methodologically rigorous, there were associated increases in donation of 25-30%, 21-26%, 2.7 more donors per million population, and 6.14 more donors per million population.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation, and other factors may have played a role. Nonetheless, the review concluded that:

The available evidence suggests that presumed consent [opt-out] is associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors are accounted for."

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="rastotm"] I'm certain that there would be far more organs available because there are far more people signed up. As there is actually a practical incentive to do so instead of just being a good person.

StrifeDelivery

That may be the case for Sweden, as there are a variety of factors.

"Defaults make a big difference. A study by Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G. Goldstein involved asking different people in an online survey whether they would be willing to be donors in several different hypothetical scenarios.

In the first scenario, participants were told that the default was not to be an organ donor (but they had the option to consent-in). In the second, participants were told that the default was to be an organ donor (but had the option to opt-out).

Not surprisingly, this made a big difference. When participants had to consent-in, only 42% chose to do so. If they had to opt-out, 82% agreed to donate.

Is this also the case in practice? The best empirical evidence currently available suggests it is.

In 2008, the UK government commissioned an independent review of the available research. There were five studies that compared donation rates before and after the introduction of an opt-out system in particular countries; eight compared donation rates between consent-in and opt-out system countries.

The results? All five of the before-and-after studies reported an increase in donation rates after the introduction of opt-out. And in the four between-country comparison studies judged the most methodologically rigorous, there were associated increases in donation of 25-30%, 21-26%, 2.7 more donors per million population, and 6.14 more donors per million population.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation, and other factors may have played a role. Nonetheless, the review concluded that:

The available evidence suggests that presumed consent [opt-out] is associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors are accounted for."

[QUOTE="StrifeDelivery"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]They can't say that is true though. Sweden has opt out and that has not affected the donation rate per million.LJS9502_basic

That may be the case for Sweden, as there are a variety of factors.

"Defaults make a big difference. A study by Eric J. Johnson and Daniel G. Goldstein involved asking different people in an online survey whether they would be willing to be donors in several different hypothetical scenarios.

In the first scenario, participants were told that the default was not to be an organ donor (but they had the option to consent-in). In the second, participants were told that the default was to be an organ donor (but had the option to opt-out).

Not surprisingly, this made a big difference. When participants had to consent-in, only 42% chose to do so. If they had to opt-out, 82% agreed to donate.

Is this also the case in practice? The best empirical evidence currently available suggests it is.

In 2008, the UK government commissioned an independent review of the available research. There were five studies that compared donation rates before and after the introduction of an opt-out system in particular countries; eight compared donation rates between consent-in and opt-out system countries.

The results? All five of the before-and-after studies reported an increase in donation rates after the introduction of opt-out. And in the four between-country comparison studies judged the most methodologically rigorous, there were associated increases in donation of 25-30%, 21-26%, 2.7 more donors per million population, and 6.14 more donors per million population.

Of course, correlation does not equal causation, and other factors may have played a role. Nonetheless, the review concluded that:

The available evidence suggests that presumed consent [opt-out] is associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors are accounted for."

I know, that's why I included that last bit, specifically "The available evidence suggests that presumed consent is associated with increased organ donation rates, even when other factors are accounted for." Particularly the line about other factors being accounted for. Of course everyone knows correlation doesn't equal causation, almost stale hearing it.

no, some people are just cesspools of disease. putting an aids ridden organ in someone that wants to live a fairly comfortable lifestyle seems counterproductive.

SirWander

Go back to school!

Seems people have to be redundant for you to get something, since you are talking about unstated premises that only you believe exist in a topic you don't seem to understand.

StrifeDelivery

Oh, that does seem to be the case. 

The only reason not to be an organ donor is if you think you'll need your organs in the afterlife, which makes you an ancient Egyptian mummy.Makhaidos

Or maybe they just don't want to.

no, some people are just cesspools of disease. putting an aids ridden organ in someone that wants to live a fairly comfortable lifestyle seems counterproductive.

SirWander

Er, they test organs.

Nah. If people want to be organ donors they have to volunteer.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That's implied consent. Which isn't right. Again...what the f*ck is stopping those that honestly want to donate? Not a damn thing.....Master_Live

Er, they test organs.airshocker

Yep.

that post has proved to be more popular than I think it warrants to be.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]Er, they test organs.SirWander

Yep.

that post has proved to be more popular than I think it warrants to be.

Nah.

That post was pretty stupid.  I'm surprised it didn't get more attention.

Also surprised that you took the time to delete it in that quote, but you're too daft to delete the original to avoid future quotings.  And that's even more hilarious after reading all of your feeble attempts at defending such a stupid post. 

Does the OP have to give you instructions?

Lel.

Nah.

That post was pretty stupid.  I'm surprised it didn't get more attention.

Also surprised that you took the time to delete it in that quote, but you're too daft to delete the original to avoid future quotings.  And that's even more hilarious after reading all of your feeble attempts at defending such a stupid post. 

Does the OP have to give you instructions?

Lel.

HavocV3

oh

I suppose. Do you think it's that remarkable?

Why would I delete the original post when so many have already quoted it? Also, it doesn't take that much time. At least it was worth reading.

No. The TC has no obligations to give instructions.

hmm

What if I need those in my next life?