ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:26 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Organ donor priority
PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 8:05 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
I think that organ donors should get priority over non-donors. People that can't donate for medical reasons would receive the same priority, but anybody unwilling to let others have their organs if they die doesn't have any business accepting others.

Agree? Cool. Why?

Disagree? Shoot me and let my organs go to help others. -err, I mean, why?

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:21 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Ah, Eric. I love your sense of humour.

I would agree with you, but isn't it against some people's beliefs to donate organs? I'm not sure about that, but I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility. And... why should people be discriminated against for their religion?

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:50 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
Aside from the debate on where the line between "not infringing the rights of the religious" and "catering to the religious," which I think such a situation would cross, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if you subscribe to a religion that prohibits the donation of your organs, you won't be okay with someone donating their organs to you.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:50 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
Lucis Spei wrote:
Aside from the debate on where the line between "not infringing the rights of the religious" and "catering to the religious," which I think such a situation would cross, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if you subscribe to a religion that prohibits the donation of your organs, you won't be okay with someone donating their organs to you.


Exactly. Also, so me peopel are unable to donate for medical reasons (mad cow disease, bad transfusion, that sort of thing) and it wouldn't be discriminating against them, they could have the same priority as donors (just not higher).

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:15 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:49 pm
Posts: 399
Location: Somewhere else
I think this would be a great idea.

Those medically unable to donate get the same priority as donaters (first come, first served), and those unwilling to donate (for whatever reason), get lower priority.

Question is: Does this mean that all donaters get their stuff before any non-donatees get anything?

_________________
--- This space for let ---


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:21 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Lucis Spei wrote:
Aside from the debate on where the line between "not infringing the rights of the religious" and "catering to the religious," which I think such a situation would cross, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if you subscribe to a religion that prohibits the donation of your organs, you won't be okay with someone donating their organs to you.


I have had a little schmeck at this. Because often people are selfish. And if the doctor tells them that a liver transplant is the only way to cure their cirrhosis, I highly doubt they're going to say that they'll choose to die rather than get a transplant. In most cases, religious belief flies out the window when your life is at stake. But it's much easier to say that you cannot donate organs to give other people life, because it goes against your religion.

I'm sure most people would probably use that as an excuse to hide their uneasiness about carving up their corpse.... but I do happen to think that there are people who truly believe that it's against their beliefs to donate. It's just that when you're life is threatened by an lethal organ failure or abnormality, it's not something that you consider.


If I have to say that there's one reason I'm against implementing this idea, it's because I think it just adds further regulations to complicate alreayd complicated matters. Doctors already have tests and psychological standards for the patients who will receive the organs, according to what has just become available. This is to determine to find the best person who will likely be a successful transplant so that the organ will not go to waste.

What would be the point in putting a heart into a patient who will likely not reject the new heart, and telling the person who wasn't a donor who was a better candidate to receive the heart (was more compatible with blood type and white cell type) that they weren't chosen? The hidden reason being that they were not a donor. The chances are increased that the new heart will end up a failure and a waste, whilst there had been a better chance at success in the non-donor.

I think the important thing when it comes to organ transplant is effective transplants. It's not as simple as put it in the patient, and all is well. Organ conservation is the key, since there is a severe shortage of organs until we can clone a person's needed organ in a petri dish. Not who is more considerate, and thus deserves an organ more.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:30 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
No, I'm not saying that all donors should get organs before all non-donors - and certainly nobody getting bits and pieces that they'd most likely reject (I'm reminded of a standup bit: 'My ex-girlfriend's going in for a heart transplant tomorrow. Oh, I'm not worried - her body hasn't rejected an organ in years"). The system's not that refined yet in my head. Perhaps two donors for every non, or just that it would be considered a 'tie-breaker'.

I realize that suddenly needing an organ might change one's views. Perhaps enough so to make them become a donor? That'd be fine - they just can't change their mind again after the surgery.

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:49 pm 
Offline
Spawn of Kyhm and D
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4498
Location: Australia
Let's build a super computer to make all our moral decisions for us. It shall be grand, and we shall name it Uni.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Autophage wrote:
No, I'm not saying that all donors should get organs before all non-donors - and certainly nobody getting bits and pieces that they'd most likely reject (I'm reminded of a standup bit: 'My ex-girlfriend's going in for a heart transplant tomorrow. Oh, I'm not worried - her body hasn't rejected an organ in years"). The system's not that refined yet in my head. Perhaps two donors for every non, or just that it would be considered a 'tie-breaker'.


I still stand by what I said. I don't quite understand how a "tie-breaker" or ratio would counter my point.
Fact is, I don't think it should be relivant whether a person is a morally justifiable person or not when it comes to medical treatment. Unless we follow a moral system set by Uni. But we all saw how that turned out.

Autophage wrote:
I realize that suddenly needing an organ might change one's views. Perhaps enough so to make them become a donor? That'd be fine - they just can't change their mind again after the surgery.


Let us judge those who are hypocritical and make sure that they do not live on to pollute this world and use up organs any longer. Harhar.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:51 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
I'm an organ donor but I still think it's an iffy proposition. What if two patients need a heart--one a Jehovah's Witness and the other a card carrying NAMBLA child molesting jack-off who just happens to be an organ donor. Should the NAMBLA guy recieve a heart first because he's a donor? Should we give the heart to the selfish Jehova's Witness person instead because we hate the NAMBLA guy more?

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:10 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
I still don't understand how the Jehovah's Witness might be able to accept a transplanted organ - if their body needs to be intact at burial, wouldn't the doctors be making it un-intact by the surgery?

As for the NAMBLA-guy example - he gets a shot at life just like everybody else. Is he a convicted criminal, or just a creep? What if there is some faction in society that idolizes pedophiles, would they not prefer that he get the organ first before anybody else?

Is mine an unfair system? Certainly is - but is the current one any more fair?

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:34 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
Apparently the Jehova's witness' convictions are tossed asside since his life is on the line. But he still won't not encourage organ donations afterwards.

And I'm not saying we shouldn't give the NAMBLA guy a heart, I was just asking wether he should be prioritized just because he's a donor.

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:53 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Jehova's witness' regularily refuse blood/organ transplants and die.

Personally, i'm of the belief that organ Donation should be opt-out, not opt-in; this way people who have religious or moral reasons not to have their organs used after their death can specify so, but the apathetic majority who care neither way and haven't even thought about it will have their organs put to good use. This would likely remove the need for such a scheme, as Autophage was considering.

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2038 9:00 pm
Posts: 3209
Autophage wrote:
Lucis Spei wrote:
Aside from the debate on where the line between "not infringing the rights of the religious" and "catering to the religious," which I think such a situation would cross, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if you subscribe to a religion that prohibits the donation of your organs, you won't be okay with someone donating their organs to you.


Exactly. Also, so me peopel are unable to donate for medical reasons (mad cow disease, bad transfusion, that sort of thing) and it wouldn't be discriminating against them, they could have the same priority as donors (just not higher).

uhm, mad cow disease? all I dunno, fifty of them?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:05 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 19, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 999
Location: Midworld
The Baron wrote:
Autophage wrote:
Lucis Spei wrote:
Aside from the debate on where the line between "not infringing the rights of the religious" and "catering to the religious," which I think such a situation would cross, I think it's a fairly safe bet that if you subscribe to a religion that prohibits the donation of your organs, you won't be okay with someone donating their organs to you.


Exactly. Also, so me peopel are unable to donate for medical reasons (mad cow disease, bad transfusion, that sort of thing) and it wouldn't be discriminating against them, they could have the same priority as donors (just not higher).

uhm, mad cow disease? all I dunno, fifty of them?


It's a bit worse than that, Bar. The scare of Mad Cow is large enough that people who've spent any time in Europe in the last, well, around 20 years can't donate blood. I know, I'm one of them, because I was in Italy for two and a half years. I'm not sure how that would translate to organ donation, But I can definitely understand why it'd be a disqualifier for that, too.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:35 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 9:38 pm
Posts: 399
Location: The other end of the phoneline
ptlis wrote:
Personally, i'm of the belief that organ Donation should be opt-out, not opt-in; this way people who have religious or moral reasons not to have their organs used after their death can specify so, but the apathetic majority who care neither way and haven't even thought about it will have their organs put to good use. This would likely remove the need for such a scheme, as Autophage was considering.


Intriguing... I like it.

_________________
I wish I had a signature rather than just a lame joke about not having a signature.

DNI'd = Kali_Ava and darksetyuna.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:42 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 2571
Autophage wrote:
ptlis wrote:
Personally, i'm of the belief that organ Donation should be opt-out, not opt-in; this way people who have religious or moral reasons not to have their organs used after their death can specify so, but the apathetic majority who care neither way and haven't even thought about it will have their organs put to good use. This would likely remove the need for such a scheme, as Autophage was considering.


Intriguing... I like it.


That's something I could support.

And Eric, how is the system not fair as is? I don't see how donors and non-donors being treated as equal is unjust and should be changed. Maybe what ought to be addressed is the quality of care given to the rich and to the poor, and if/how that factors into organ donation.

_________________
-DNI ~ by Ezelek
I have earned the title of Pedant.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:47 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 23, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3706
Oh yeah, to further elaborate: Such a scheme would be 'all in' or 'all out' - that is if you decide to opt-out, you opt out of recieving organs as well as donating them on your death.

_________________
There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies
within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:05 pm 
Offline
Spawn of Kyhm and D
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 4498
Location: Australia
What if you're not a package deal? I know that my father is an organ donator, except for his eyes, which he is keeping "in case there is something to see". Would things like this effect the system, or is it "One toe in, all benefits apply"?

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 12:28 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:25 pm
Posts: 294
An eye for an eye, a toe for a toe? If you refuse to donate your scrotum, you can't recieve one if ever you prematurely lose yours?

_________________
SERENITY NOW!

DNI'dby Gazing Rabbit


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group