Arranging to have your bodily organs donated to medical science if the worst happens, is almost universally lauded. But very few of us (including moi) put the arrangements in place to do so. Hence the long waiting lists for transplant surgery. So why are we talking the talk, but not walking the walk, and signing up to it ? I see two main reasons. Firstly, a lot of people don't like the recognition of mortality inherent in it, though that can't be the most significant reason, because vastly more people prepare a will, than register as organ donors. The main reason has to be a suspicion that prospective donors will be less likely to be kept alive by medical intervention in an emergency. Is this distrust warranted ? It is a tragedy that every day healthy people die in accidents, and sick people die for want of their organs, what can be done to instil confidence that organ donation is risk-free ?
I have the irrational fear that if i sign up, in an emergecy situation they'll just let me pass away so they can harvest my organs.
For one, you are making a very big mistake here. Having your organs donated for transplant is not the same thing as having your body donated for science. If you sign and agree to be an organ donor, that is all they do. They harvest your organs, only after you are brain dead. And krunkskimo, that is the last thing I would worry about. A doctor is not going to let you reach brain death just to get your organs. Once you are brain dead, that is it. They can keep your body alive for years, but you are never comming back. Donating your body to science is something totally different. When that happens, your organs are almost never donated. Instead your body generally goes to a medical school, where it is used by medical students to practice their anatomy. Or it is sent to one of various research groups for studies (ranging from putting your body in the woods to see how long it takes to decompose, to removing your orangs and putting them in jars for various research projects). I have been listed as an organ donor for over 20 years. However, I have never considered donating my body to science.
I have been a donor since I got my license. There is no evidence to suggest that doctors allow organ donors to pass so that they may harvest the patients organs, there is no reason to refuse another person a life saving organ for such a conspiracy theory.
State Fair stage collapse victim to donate organs... 7th Victim To Donate Organs After Fair Stage Collapse August 22, 2011 - Woman's Death Imminent More Than Week After Collapse
I agree with you 100% on this. The story about the fairgrounds victim is an indication that they do what they can to save all, including organ donors.
There is no rational reason not to donate. After you are brain dead, you've got no use for your organs.
Sadly, many people think that way, and no disrespect, but that is utter nonsense. Its a very fine tuned and professional machine that goes into effect. All members of a transplant team are highly trained, and only come in when no other options are left, then re-test once more.
Most people simply address this issue from the wrong direction. As a Libertarian capitalist the answer is simple. We have a shortage of a commodity (the organs) and that is what needs to be addressed. Currently the hospital and staff treating the "deseased" are making money. The organ storage facility and the transportation companies that deliver the organ to the transplant hospital are making money. The hospital and staff that does the transplant surgery are making money. The only person that isn't making money is the person that owns the "commodity" that is require (i.e. the organ) and they are prevented from doing so by law. If people were allowed to sell their organs to organ banks prior to dying the whole problem goes away. We would have millions of people willing to sign on the dotted line if they were paid as little as a few thousand dollars for their organs. It has already been well documented that relying purely on altruistic motives isn't working and introducting capitalism into the equation will provide a financial motive for individuals to donate their organs thereby increasing supply which is really the issue that needs to be resolved.
Proud to say I've been a donor since I was 16. I want have any use for them when I'm dead, so somebody else might as well
Perhaps that could be a solution,if it were that simple, but the same fear would remain. "Will they let me die because they need the organs", whether previously allocated or not. Also, the same teams needs to be present, to a- declare brain death b-test for compatibility and functionality of organs/health/absence of communicable diseases c-harvest team d-transplant and/or transport teams...time is an issue so in the end, you won't save much, because the potential donor wants to live, and
The conditions for organ donation can be explicitly stated in the contract. a - The doctor that declares the patient brain dead should not be involved with whether organs are to be saved for transplanting. b - Testing can be done before and in some cases after the organs are removed. c - The "harvest team" should not include the attending physician. d- The transportation is arranged for independently and is another team unrealted to the physicians that actually perform the transplant. Of note many organs can be sustained for a considerable amount of time between being removed from the corpse and being transplanted into the person receiving the transplant. There would still be far more donors if they were paid than what we have today. That is an undeniable fact. Considering the many tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars involved in a transplant it is not unreasonable for the donor to receive compensation before they die for the organs they are giving.
usually, he/she is not , but some support staff crosses over at times Depends what you are talking about, i.e. organ viability. Also, keep in mind that some diseases, i.e. antibodies may not show depending on time frame of exposure before the donor's death, and only in minute amounts, esp. HIV, a bit quicker in Hep C. Someone has to make the call to activate, then the transplant team takes over. I don't know about costs and billing, but my guess is that separating the teams would increase the cost. Think of it this way, from the time a patient comes through the ER doors, to the attending making a move to family notification and consent, its all in house (Hospital). When a transplant team takes over, its comparable to a fine tuned orchestra. Every musician is vital, and replacing even one with a rookie can fail the performance. Depending on the organ, minutes/distance and competence count to a varying degree. Tissue can even be banked. But look at it this way, while you may have a time frame, depending on the specific organ, the recipient, the donor, all the players have to be in place. Testing needs to be done. The recipients can only be prepped, waiting for the organ to arrive. Organ harvesting takes time, as does prepping the organ itself, as does transportation. Not all donors and recipients live next to each other. Sure, some variables could be tweaked, but much cannot. Don't forget, we aren't taking about taking a car to the shop.
The fact is that none of this really changes and it is all dependent upon the individual being willing to donate their organs. My proposition is merely that there would be a lot more donors if they were able to sell the rights to their organs as opposed to having a system where individuals donate without compensation which isn't providing enough organ donors.
I cannot guarantee that this would never happen in the USA but believe me here we have some VERY strict rules about organ donation and the declaration of brain death. And personally if it ever came to brain injury that bad - PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE let me pass away - and you can have whatever you want afterwards People who think that there is nothing worse than death should take a walk through an ICU one day
Ok, yes, its an idea, but lets look at it from another angle, one which has come up many times. Lets say you sell the rights to your organs for monetary compensation. Of course you speak freely about it. One of those who may profit from the compensation decides that today is the day. Your are shot in the head, brought to the ER, and staff goes to work. Or some rich guy knows that Juan down the road needs money for his family, and decides that his daughter can't wait any longer for a heart transplant. So he takes matters in his own hands. Whereas before we had the gift of life, we now have greed in the equation, not to mention the class envy, thinking that the rich can now buy life. Far fetched? Not really. If you think people has irrational thoughts and anxieties about organ donations, you just wait until your scenario spins out. We need more thorough education on the subject, to alleviate the fears, put to rest the rumors.
Ever read "Stiff, The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers ". I came to the same conclusion, that I would never donate my body to science after reading it.
Individuals won't be purchasing the organs, institutions would be. The selection process for organ transplants would be unchanged so "killing" someone for their organs would never be a consideration. Besides no one would know whether a person had decided to sell their organs anyway so how could an individual be targeted? I know all about "organ" transplants and yet I choose not to give mine away. Now offer me $10,000 right now and I'll sign on the dotted-line. Once again why should everyone profit from organ transplants except the person that actually owns the organs? That makes no sense to me. BTW we're also seeing some organs being grown from stem cells today so in the future this maybe completely moot. Of course there remain the weirdo bigots that oppose stem cell research predominately for absurd religious reasons. It is always amazing but science still advances in spite of religion and never because of it.
Still, when you ( your family) profit, someone will abuse what you have to sell. Perhaps more people would be more willing to donate organs if compensated, those who just view organ transplant as a cash transaction, but many more people view it as a gift of life, as passing on something vital, for which one can't name a price. If one decides against donation because of fear of the unknown, perhaps education, not cash, is the key? As for stem cell research, its the public funding, not private funding that is most controversial. Its my right to see it the way I wish. Its my freedom, as an individual citizen to hold my own opinion, without the Gov mandating how I must view stem cell research, and use my taxes in ways I find inappropriate.
oh GOOD POINT. Won't work though. See, we the public would be considered grasping and money grubbing if WE actually made money off our own organs. What we would prefer you see is to put ourselves in the hands, entirely, of a profession that we have no reason to doubt. so THEY can benefit from it. We'll eventually get there. I've been on boards where liberal posters want people to be forced to donate their organs or taken from them without their permission.
If the sale of one's organs was legal, it would give the poor something to pass down to their heirs, even if they couldn't afford life insurance.
My husband was fortunate to receive a heart transplant and is doing great.The donor's family was very honored to have part of their son give life and we were even more honored and blessed to receive their gift.
