Should non-organ Donors be Given Organs??

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You do realize that people who need organs cannot become organ donors, right? Their organs are not viable...that's why they need different ones.

Organ transplant is complex. For one thing, you can't just take a heart or something out of one person and pop it into someone else. There has to be a tissue match between the donor and the recipient...and there has to be a dire, emergent condition to warrant a transplant medically.

Organ recipients only qualify for a transplant when they are below a certain percentage of organ function. They have to be actively dying to receive an organ. And they've been very sick for a very long while by that time. They do not qualify as organ donors themselves, even if their other organs are still in OK shape, because when one organ system fails, the body is compromised systemically.

I know quite a few transplant patients, and they all express regret at not being able to pay it forward with one of their own organs. But even after they're well again, they'll be on anti rejection medications and many other drugs for the rest of their lives, and those substances have side effects that make them non-viable as organ or blood donors. So the people I know help out in other ways in the community.

They are the most grateful people you'll ever meet, and I'd gladly give my organs to any one of them without expecting anything in return. I know many who didn't make it because they died before a tissue match could be located, and that's one of the most heartbreaking things I've ever witnessed in two decades of working in medicine.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Zerodoublehero

Following that logic people who do not donate to charity should not receive any aid.

Lots of poor staving children in African and other places around the globe might perish rather quickly under such circumstance.

Seems to me organ donation is an ethical conundrum for some and a simple choice for others.

Should not discriminate or refuse life saving measures through just because one shares different values or does not wish to participate in something others deem necessary.

Hmmm no, I don't like your analogy... It's not the same thing... A starving person in Africa doesn't have the means to give anything (though you'll probably find they actually do with each other). So that is like a sick person with destroyed organs not being ABLE to donate any organs getting refused a transplant (because they can't rather than because they refuse) and that's not what was asked.

If you have a bunch of money, say you're a millionaire and you walk past homeless people and scoff, you never give them a penny or get anything for them and never give to charity etc. Then one day lose it all and find yourself homeless... Wouldn't you be a damn hypocrite to put your hand out? Do you deserve anything from anyone? That's a better analogy in my opinion.

I think it's right that if you are not willing to give then you shouldn't be able to receive. Not being able is a different story and I think that then comes down to why...

That's also an interesting topic... Lets take a smoker or otherwise unhealthy person, they are not able to donate because they have not looked after their body... Should they be exempt for not being able? I think not...

But lets say you can't donate because of a birth defect or some other problem outside of your control then you are.

a reply to: Meee32

Alarming really the amount of people who would withhold medical attention to those in need just because they perceive those that do not wish participate as some how less than. Obviously as some form of slight really again those that do.

Thank goodness that in this nation people who think along such lines don't get to decide who receives these much needed organ donations.

I thought my analogy summed it up rather eloquently really but each to there own I suppose.

I may have read the OP differently from the rest of the thread, but I believe they're asking that if there are two people who need the same organ transplant and all things are equal between them except one is willing to be an organ donor and one isn't, should the one willing to donate get the organ? Pragmatically and ethically I'd say yes. That person is more likely to encourage others to do the same and is more than likely a more pragmatic person. (You don't need organs after you are dead. It is known.) Thinking about how you can help others and the thought of someone making use of something you don't need are great traits to have in a communal species.

From a more Liberal and hopeful point of view IT might be better to give the organ to the person who won't donate. since their organs can't be used there would be no benefit gained in their death but after having the transplant they may be willing to donate and may encourage others to do the same. The person who is willing to donate may die, but since they are willing to donate they may in turn save many more people with the gift they are willing to give.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I think the only policy should be that people are treated on the basis of medial need.

I do not in any way believe passionate views on medical issues, on the part of interested parties should drive medical policy.

To make politicised medical (or any other) policy; which we so much of in the US, leads to the very lop sided and highly politicized society that the US has become.

If someone does not want to see policy and laws made that pass the "fair and just" test laws that apply and benefit society as a whole, then sure, go down the road of allowing and encouraging lawmakers to make laws based upon the their own personal views on the subject matter under consideration.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Should welfare recipients be allowed to vote? The answer may surprise you.

It doesn't make any difference whether you are an organ donor or not.

If you can't afford a new liver or whatever, and / or your insurance won't cover it, or you can't afford the deductible, you won't get a transplant anyway.

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

Well considering our welfare recipients are also citizens of the nation who contribute national insurance contributions and pay council tax like anyone else i cant see how the question is even relevant?

So if the answer is anything other than YES your right i will indeed be surprised.