Organs removed before donors are 'dead'

Organs removed before donors are 'dead'

www.abc.net.au

Paediatric intensive care specialist Dr James Tibballs says many people sign up to donate their organs without being properly informed of the circumstances in which their organs will be used.

Dr Tibballs's claims have angered organ donation advocates, who say there is a risk people will be scared away from donating.

Dr Tibballs, writing in the Journal of Law and Medicine, said doctors were interpreting the definition of death differently from the law.

(visit the link for the full news article)

When is dead, dead? I am sure if I were to donate an organ I would want to make sure my family knew for certain that I was well and truley gone and not 'clinically' dead. there are cases of people coming back from being on the edge.

The law states organs can be taken from a donor when they have either irreversible cessation of all functions of their brain or irreversible cessation of blood circulation.

But Dr Tibballs says in practice doctors often take organs from patients who are dying, rather than dead, and clinical guidelines used to determine brain death could not prove irreversible cessation of brain function.

How any doctors, determined to save a life of another will tell a family thier loved on is dead, when they are in reality nearly dead (possibly retrievable) but the doctor will not do any more because they need an organ?
This could also lead to cash payments to a doctor to determine somebody is dead prematurely.

He also says after cardiac death (when blood stops circulating) doctors often waited for two minutes before taking organs rather than "proving irreversible cessation of bloody flow".

He argues that two minutes can be too soon and that doctors use the two-minute guideline because some organs only remain usable for transplant for a limited time after cardiac death.

I know organs need to be harvested and transplanted as fresh as possible, but there are limits.

www.abc.net.au
(visit the link for the full news article)

This is something I've always worried about when deliberating whether I should become and OD or not. I'd like to hear the complete other side of the story, but this provides me with a pretty good reason enough to not donate.

Then again the article is from ABC Australia so perhaps the guidelines are different here in the US?

It's probably a good idea to review the guidelines periodically, but overall I think I'd rather have a doctor determine whether I'm dead than leave it to the lawyers.

yea, I am against organ donation in most cases. Most of the cases are idiots who let there body run down, and don't deserve a second chance. Notice I said MOST, not all. There are exceptions, a child for example.

On the flip side, I am against giving the doctor the power to harvest. Additionally, if they have the power, I am against giving them monetary gain in any form to make that decision.

On another flip side . Anyone doing 40-life without payroll, should be harvested. There wasting air, space, and time. Atleast that way, they can help someone else. Have them go through some serious detox, then move on.

just my opinion.

Camain

reply to post by VIKINGANT



I am a designated organ donor. My husband is upset about it for the same reason stated in the article.

My best friend was killed a few years back on his motorcycle. Being in his mid-twenties and being an organ donor he was able to give someone sight, that couldn't see. A woman has his heart. Several people are still living because of him.

When it happened the doctors told us he was completely brain dead immediately after impact. I was in the room when they told us there was no hope for him to come back....

Something good can come of even the worst tragedy. If someone gets a second chance and does something good......it was because of my friend.

For those undecided, hopefully this artilce will help you. But keep in mind also, if the Government get thier way, you may not have to make the decision if you procastinate too long...

Currently, people are not considered donors unless they have formally indicated they wish to be one and have received approval from their next of kin.

The new system would see anyone considered for organ donation unless they have specified they do not wish to be a donor.

Mandatory organ donation

This is apparently happening in many countries already.

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Currently, people are not considered donors unless they have formally indicated they wish to be one and have received approval from their next of kin.

My drivers liscense identifies me as an organ donor. I didn't have to have approval of my next of kin.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by Aislin]

Originally posted by InterestedObserver
This is something I've always worried about when deliberating whether I should become and OD or not.

Same here. I've heard of cases in the states where the same thing would happen; Someone wouldn't get the extra attention needed to keep them alive and their organs are out before the blood goes cold. Of course that is the exception to the rule, but also the reason I said, "NO!" when they asked me if I wanted to be an organ donor.

Then when I got home there it was, organ donor, right where it wasn't supposed to be. Screw them for trying to get an extra $20 out of me for their mistake.

Originally posted by Aislin

Originally posted by VIKINGANT
Currently, people are not considered donors unless they have formally indicated they wish to be one and have received approval from their next of kin.

My drivers liscense identifies me as an organ donor. I didn't have to have approval of my next of kin.

[edit on 10/20/2008 by Aislin]

I think that means the doctors need next of kin approval at the time of death, which really makes your choice redundant. If your Husband does not agree, your organs are staying right where they are, no matter what is on your licence. But then he will have to live with the guilt of not seeing through your wishes...