Organ Donor: 'Yes Unless' - Netherlands

[Magical Mudcrab]

I agree with the sentiment, but it comes off as you becoming the property of the state.

[BannedForViews]

Your evidence of why everyone everywhere should not be an organ donor is one anecdote from the entire world as well as the opinion of one doctor, who himself agrees the patient is diagnostically dead, but questions whether they are "ethically dead" since their lifeless husk can continue to maintain autonomic functions for years while hooked to a bunch of machines...?

Your ability to put words in peoples mouths in an attempt to be edgy is quiet astounding. Where did I ever say everyone everywhere? I couldn't give two shits if you want to give your worthless body away after you die. I'm saying Doctors DO NOT go through all the same protocol for organ donors as non organ donors. The test requirements are not as exhaustive, and you will be hustled away to make the hospital a lot of fucking money if they can do so. Is every organ donor someone that could have been save? No of course not. If you were one of many anecdotal stories where you would have lived but instead died to fill someone else's body, would you be okay with that? Don't conflate what the issue is.

[zenkai]

The deceased persons desire to not/donate their organs matters. Their families feelings dont matter, because the deceased is an adult able to make their own decisions.

The reality is this, most people don't ever really think about what will happen to their organs after they die, and don't much care - so they never go and become an organ donor - because going to the beach that day is always more fun than going down to the morgue to fill out paperwork.

We can prove this, because when countries switch to the "opt out" system, very few people ever bother to go down and actually opt out of organ donation. The difference, is that making it an opt out system, increases the number of organs for donation like fivefold - and apparently nobody really cares: because few people ever actually opt out.

You should absolutely have the option to opt out, but your families feels are completely irrelevant.

No it matters, its my body my choice!

[Yvaelle]

Lol, is this a joke? You're making me cite something with all the absolute crap that people post here?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014...69910906351598

The article is pay-walled, but appears to be about whether the brain-dead experience pain, rather than whether doctors delight in murdering their patients to save others. For the topic the article is about, they would still react to pain - because they still have pain nerves functioning so long as their blood is kept artificially pumping, but they would not experience pain, because their brain is dead - and experience requires a brain to interpret.

So yes, can an organ donor flinch on the operating table in apparent pain? Yep, it's pretty horrifying - but if you turned off the machine next to them artificially pumping blood through them, they would not flinch.

How about the fact that it's illegal for you or your family to financially benefit from the donation of your tissue, but the hospital can make millions off of one dead body?

Hospitals in most of the developed world don't make money off organs, because healthcare is a right, not a product. The US is the only exception.

With that said, in the US, you are saying that it sucks you can't profit from your organs? I feel like that's a very different topic.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/patient...ry?id=19609438

Seriously, if everyone needs "CITATION" this fucking site would shut down. Way to wear your obvious political bias so blatantly.

The picture makes it look pretty terrifying because the doctors are holding a scalpel over her eye (stock photo).

In reality, she took a copious amount of depressants and muscle relaxants, which made her appear brain-dead for three days straight worth of CT scans. The family agreed to have her organs harvested because they'd seen her 'corpse'.

Further, the hospital failed to follow proper procedures to determine if she was truly dead.

So let me summarize the article for you:
- despite the picture, there was no indication of malice
- the family agreed she was dead, and should be harvested
- she had ~no brain activity for 3 days, long enough that the drug overdose should have worn off, but she still had no brain activity
- medical malpractice occurred at least twice at this hospital, first when someone in ER indicated she'd died of a heart attack and hadn't, second when the organ surgeons failed to follow procedure to verify her death

All in all, I see zero indication that any of the medical staff intentionally wanted to murder her to feast her gooey giblets to their frankenstein-monsters. What I do see is two circumstances of malpractice, which would make me pretty hesitant about those doctors - and the HHS was right to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation after the hospital tried to cover it up - but it's a lack of discipline that is to blame, not malice.

- - - Updated - - -

No it matters, its my body my choice!

It's still your choice, the question is just phrased differently.

"Will you take dessert?"

"Do you need dessert?"

[Yvaelle]

I agree with the sentiment, but it comes off as you becoming the property of the state.

The organ belongs to you, then it belongs to the person into whom it is transplanted. When is it the property of the state?

The state was previously asking, "Can we give your organs to someone else when you die?"

Now they are asking, "Do you want to keep your organs when you die?"

At no point are they saying, "Gief meh ur organz plzkthx!"

[Independent voter]

I agreed to allow my organs to be harvested. After I'm dead.

[BannedForViews]

The article is pay-walled, but appears to be about whether the brain-dead experience pain, rather than whether doctors delight in murdering their patients to save others. For the topic the article is about, they would still react to pain - because they still have pain nerves functioning so long as their blood is kept artificially pumping, but they would not experience pain, because their brain is dead - and experience requires a brain to interpret.

So yes, can an organ donor flinch on the operating table in apparent pain? Yep, it's pretty horrifying - but if you turned off the machine next to them artificially pumping blood through them, they would not flinch.



Hospitals in most of the developed world don't make money off organs, because healthcare is a right, not a product. The US is the only exception.

With that said, in the US, you are saying that it sucks you can't profit from your organs? I feel like that's a very different topic.



The picture makes it look pretty terrifying because the doctors are holding a scalpel over her eye (stock photo).

In reality, she took a copious amount of depressants and muscle relaxants, which made her appear brain-dead for three days straight worth of CT scans. The family agreed to have her organs harvested because they'd seen her 'corpse'.

Further, the hospital failed to follow proper procedures to determine if she was truly dead.

So let me summarize the article for you:
- despite the picture, there was no indication of malice
- the family agreed she was dead, and should be harvested
- she had ~no brain activity for 3 days, long enough that the drug overdose should have worn off, but she still had no brain activity
- medical malpractice occurred at least twice at this hospital, first when someone in ER indicated she'd died of a heart attack and hadn't, second when the organ surgeons failed to follow procedure to verify her death

All in all, I see zero indication that any of the medical staff intentionally wanted to murder her to feast her gooey giblets to their frankenstein-monsters. What I do see is two circumstances of malpractice, which would make me pretty hesitant about those doctors - and the HHS was right to conduct an independent, in-depth investigation after the hospital tried to cover it up - but it's a lack of discipline that is to blame, not malice.

- - - Updated - - -



It's still your choice, the question is just phrased differently.

"Will you take dessert?"

"Do you need dessert?"

It wasn't pay walled, you just click the banner closed. Maybe cause you are Canadian....

All Hospitals profit from organ donations. Do you think the doctors performing those procedures are not paid well to compensate them? Do you think the governments providing "free" health care are not billed for said procedures? Are you that naive?

The Hospital failing is exactly the point. The laws, at least in the US, if you would have read the first article, are very rudimentary for determining death. The standard is set low, so that people who might still be alive, or "make it" CAN be found to be dead for the purposes of donation.

"All in all, I see zero indication that any of the medical staff intentionally wanted to murder her to feast her gooey giblets to their frankenstein-monsters"
Apparently you are as adept as IPushButtons. I never said this, at all. No one has. Talk about a straw man argument. Where are people saying hospitals kill you to harvest your organs? I said doctors do not go through the same efforts to save the lives of people whose organs they are allowed to harvest, as those who they are not. By all means, try and show how I am wrong, cause I've given you evidence to support my claim.

[Actarius]

So, you would rather have your organs rot in the ground or be turned into ash, than potentially save a life?

Are you sure you're using the word "moral" correctly?

But there's nothing morally wrong with it, of course.

"It" referring to organ donation.

[I Push Buttons]

The organ belongs to you, then it belongs to the person into whom it is transplanted. When is it the property of the state?

The state was previously asking, "Can we give your organs to someone else when you die?"

Now they are asking, "Do you want to keep your organs when you die?"

At no point are they saying, "Gief meh ur organz plzkthx!"

But dude... The evil corporations! The doctors are going to murder you so they can illegally sell your organs for profit or something!

[Actarius]

Like someone already said, this is the case in Austria, and the issue you describe isn't really that much of an issue. It's not really a lot of people's business what your donor status is, and you don't have to tell anyone about it.

That's interesting, usually people make a big deal about it when they find out I'm not one. Maybe it's a U.S. or California thing

[Deleted]

If you opt out, you should be thrown at the back of the list when it comes to recieving one.

[I Push Buttons]

That's interesting, usually people make a big deal about it when they find out I'm not one. Maybe it's a U.S. or California thing

"Hey guys I have the potential to help other people at no cost or burden to myself whatsoever, but fuck em!"

I can't possibly imagine why anyone would make a big deal about it...

[Actarius]

And that's fine. Being a selfish bastard even in death should be frowned upon.

IMO people opting out of donating should also not receive any organ if they may need one.

I don't really agree with the second part. If you need an organ, and someone dies who was, in life, willing to give up their organs, then that's fine if you're next on the list.

- - - Updated - - -

"Hey guys I have the potential to help other people at no cost or burden to myself whatsoever, but fuck em!"

I can't possibly imagine why anyone would make a big deal about it...

It requires me actively checking a box :P opportunity cost and burden of effort

[RayenDark]

I really want to opt out from this kind of systems. I want to have more pressure on researching how to create artificial organs instead of relying on scavenging.

Agreed. Focus on making them so that saving someone's life doesn't require someone else's death.



I have no issues donating blood but my organ are going with me-Personal reasons as to objecting organ donating and that's all that matters. My body, My Choice-not yours. Keep your opinions to yourself. There is no right or wrong stance.

[Agartha]

Like I said, I'm torn. It's clear that more and more people will be helped by such a law. It is hard to explain but I have a deeper opposition to it, kind of on a moral level. But there's nothing morally wrong with it, of course.

My best explanation would be that the idea of someone harvesting my body for parts after I'm dead is deeply unsettling. I don't care for funeral rites, heck I don't want my family to spend thousands on a funeral, I just don't want my body cut up when I'm gone. Selfish I suppose but they're my organs and I prefer to have the option of keeping them default.

When it comes down to it, I'd probably say yes; but I'd immediately go opt out hoping not to die on my way to the DMV.

If you want to make it a moral issue, then it is immoral to not be a donor. Organs, which otherwise rot in the ground with your body, can be used to save a life, or dramatically improve quality of life. It costs you absolutely nothing, your body will look the same in its casket, your body will decompose the same, and unless you practice ancient Egyptian polytheism or some such thing, your soul is immortal and inviolable. If you're an atheist then you really have no excuse.

[Rudkobing]

Children shouldn't play with dead things.

[Actarius]

If you want to make it a moral issue, then it is immoral to not be a donor. Organs, which otherwise rot in the ground with your body, can be used to save a life, or dramatically improve quality of life. It costs you absolutely nothing, your body will look the same in its casket, your body will decompose the same, and unless you practice ancient Egyptian polytheism or some such thing, your soul is immortal and inviolable.

But there's nothing morally wrong with it, of course

"It" referring to organ donation.

[Agartha]

Agreed. My organ are going with me. Focus on making them so that saving someone's life doesn't require someone else's death.

This is an insane sentiment, we are decades away from artificial organs, maybe even more. Is organ donation ideal? No, but it's all we have, and I don't think there's a damn bit of justice in letting people die in the meantime.

[Deleted]

[URL]But there will definitely be a social stigma to saying no now that you have to go out of your way to do so. In my state it's a checkbox and that's it. If something like this passed, not only would you have to vocalize your opposition, you'd also have to potentially defend your stance from anyone who may have an issue with it.

From a societal standpoint, I definitely recognize that there's more pro than con. But from a personal standpoint, I would not want to have to voice my opposition to being a donor (incase it wasn't obvious, I'm not a donor).

What?? You can just privately say ''no'', no need to shout ''I HAVE DECIDED TO NOT BE A DONOR GUYS, SEND YOUR HATE MAIL TO: ....'' from the rooftops. Nobody has to know lol
And if you can't defend your opinion, why do you even stick to it? Seems incredibly stupid

[Actarius]

What?? You can just privately say ''no'', no need to shout ''I HAVE DECIDED TO NOT BE A DONOR GUYS, SEND YOUR HATE MAIL TO: ....'' from the rooftops. Nobody has to know lol
And if you can't defend your opinion, why do you even stick to it? Seems incredibly stupid

You need to say it loud enough for the DMV person to hear you, which is easily overheard. All it takes is one outspoke, sassy person to get in your face.
It'll become even more of a stigma now that it's opt-out
And I never said I couldn't defend my opinion, try not to twist my words. I said that such cases could arise, and I would not want to have to deal with them.

Not wanting to do something does not equate to the inability to do it.