Scott seems to have enormous faith in the American public to not think that this plan would not just result in pretty much every cent in the US government being distributed between Jersey shore, "Reality" TV, and various religions.
Scott seems to have enormous faith in the American public to not think that this plan would not just result in pretty much every cent in the US government being distributed between Jersey shore, "Reality" TV, and various religions.
Scott this isn't a small child, ITS A COUNTRY. They are a little bit different people can not change their spending willy-nilly like an indecisive child. It will take years to for stuff to be implemented, and then years for the mistakes to be changed. In that time the suffering of a lot of people will occur. I can only assume that you are joking, if not please please never never ever enter politics.
I feel like I have been through some sort of FRCF initiation ritual. Lurk, Make an arse out of yourself at some point, get frustrated with Scott, Profit?
I feel like I have been through some sort of FRCF initiation ritual. Lurk, Make an arse out of yourself at some point, get frustrated with Scott, Profit?
While Scott is obviously wrong, I do feel there is a place for this kind of thing. Say small towns have a budget set aside for community projects, and people can vote on what that money is spend on?
About organ donation, I think we should have an opt-out system, where if you opt-out, you get put on a secondary list. If no suitable candidate can be found on the first primary list, then one is searched for on the secondary. I feel this would be a fair system, for now.
I read the article, and it seems to me that your concerns were exaggerated, TheWhaleShark. The main concern you put forth relates to donation after cardiac death, or DCD, which the article clearly shows is in itself not so common - "While DCD was used for some 11 percent of dead donors in 2008, it accounted for only 7 percent of organs recovered from dead donors. (A DCD donor usually provides fewer organs than does a brain-dead donor.)" Normally the condition used is brain death, and I think there is little room for concern about premature organ harvesting in that regard.
Furthermore, the article states that "First, the patient’s family must decide to withdraw life support. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, the physician caring for the patient must not propose or discuss the possibility of organ transplantation with the family. If family members want to talk about it, the physician must refer them to the California Donor Transplant Network."
Also, consider this point - "Today, the medical establishment, facing a huge shortage of organs, needs new sources for transplantation. One solution has been a return to procuring organs from patients who die of heart failure." - if we simply had more organ donors, this would outweigh what we get from DCD. Indeed, if one were to make organ donation mandatory and ban DCD, then there would likely be a significant net benefit and one would in fact reduce any occurrences of premature harvesting - the article says only 7% of organs recovered were from DCD. At best, your point is simply an argument against DCD, not against mandatory organ donation.
I'd say that in establishing mandatory organ donation, a national DCD protocol would need to be established. You could perhaps make donation on brain death mandatory, while DCD would be voluntary.
Indeed, if one were to make organ donation mandatory and ban DCD, then there would likely be a significant net benefit, as the article says only 7% of organs were recovered from DCD.
Yes, this would be acceptable to me.
My concern, though, is in that 11% of organ harvests. The problem I have is that using DCD to harvest from a patient who could have been saved, even once, is wholly unacceptable. The only way I can find mandatory organ donation acceptable is if there is no possibility of you being saved.
So drop DCD and go back to brain death only, and I'd be more willing to accept mandatory organ donation.
I also need some way to control for the possibility of an EMT saying "This guy won't make it." That can be much trickier territory, but I'd like to think it's an extreme minority event.
Indeed, if one were to make organ donation mandatory and ban DCD, then there would likely be a significant net benefit, as the article says only 7% of organs were recovered from DCD.
Yes, this would be acceptable to me.
A better compromise would be for DCD to remain voluntary, while DBD would be mandatory.
Also, to be clear, I should've phrased my quote there as "recovered were" and not "were recovered"; I've fixed it above.
My concern, though, is in that 11% of organ harvests. The problem I have is that using DCD to harvest from a patient who could have been saved, even once, is wholly unacceptable. The only way I can find mandatory organ donation acceptable is if there is no possibility of you being saved.
As long as DCD were voluntary, this would not be a problem.
If organ donation was mandatory, I'd find a way to make my body auto-incinerate my upon death. These are my organs by birthright, Sonny Jim, and no one's getting them unless I says so.
Maybe I could one day code a virus that is totally cool in my system but causes a really nasty hemorrhagic fever in anyone else. The only problem with that is that it'd be impossible to donate anything to a family member in need.
Maybe I could one day code a virus that is totally cool in my system but causes a really nasty hemorrhagic fever in anyone else.
I have a similar idea: I wanna devise a virus To bring dire straits to your environment Crush your corporations with a mild touch Trash your whole computer system and revert you to papyrus
Heck if I could save lives by crying, I'd chop onions all god damned day.
I'd be a HERO by now. Onions: too tasty not to chop.
Isn't there a law that says once you start life saving procedures you can't stop until the patient is legally declared dead by a physician at a hospital?
I believe it doesn't have to be at a hospital, but otherwise yes.
If organ donation was mandatory, I'd find a way to make my body auto-incinerate my upon death. These are my organs by birthright, Sonny Jim, and no one's getting them unless I says so.
But . . . but, you're a young person. Don't all young people automatically agree with Rym?
Side note: Rym can no longer honestly say he hasn't heard a rational argument against mandatory organ donation that doesn't rely on religion or sentiment.
So far the only argument I've seen is "I'm a jerk and I want to keep them." I also saw an attempt at an argument about property that was refuted and not re-refuted.
So far the only argument I've seen is "I'm a jerk and I want to keep them." I also saw an attempt at an argument about property that was refuted and not re-refuted.
Well, I will admit that TWS had a rational argument, but that required (at most) a compromise where organ donation would only be mandatory on brain death, not cardiac death.
So far the only argument I've seen is "I'm a jerk and I want to keep them." I also saw an attempt at an argument about property that was refuted and not re-refuted.
Revisionist, much? "I am Scott and I am always right." is not a refutation.
Well, I will admit that TWS had a rational argument, but that required (at most) a compromise where organ donation would only be mandatory on brain death, not cardiac death.
That whole tangent was really irrelevant to the core dispute. Obviously there would only be organ donation when it was medically feasible, no matter whether you opt in or out. The point is that in the case where it is medically possible, and you are dead dead, you should not be permitted to opt out. Once you are dead dead, the doctors should be able to take your organs if they need them, and they are usable.
Your own post about sabotaging your lungs makes the argument that people will be encouraged to sabotage themselves under a mandatory donor system. Yeah, we want that as a public policy.
Once again, "I am Scott" or "Things are different in ScottWorld" is not an argument. Tell me how any argument against was refuted.
Comments
It's, "[insert name of arguer here], you're arguing with Scott."
It's a nice way to snap back to reality.
About organ donation, I think we should have an opt-out system, where if you opt-out, you get put on a secondary list. If no suitable candidate can be found on the first primary list, then one is searched for on the secondary. I feel this would be a fair system, for now.
The main concern you put forth relates to donation after cardiac death, or DCD, which the article clearly shows is in itself not so common - "While DCD was used for some 11 percent of dead donors in 2008, it accounted for only 7 percent of organs recovered from dead donors. (A DCD donor usually provides fewer organs than does a brain-dead donor.)" Normally the condition used is brain death, and I think there is little room for concern about premature organ harvesting in that regard.
Furthermore, the article states that "First, the patient’s family must decide to withdraw life support. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, the physician caring for the patient must not propose or discuss the possibility of organ transplantation with the family. If family members want to talk about it, the physician must refer them to the California Donor Transplant Network."
Also, consider this point - "Today, the medical establishment, facing a huge shortage of organs, needs new sources for transplantation. One solution has been a return to procuring organs from patients who die of heart failure." - if we simply had more organ donors, this would outweigh what we get from DCD. Indeed, if one were to make organ donation mandatory and ban DCD, then there would likely be a significant net benefit and one would in fact reduce any occurrences of premature harvesting - the article says only 7% of organs recovered were from DCD. At best, your point is simply an argument against DCD, not against mandatory organ donation.
I'd say that in establishing mandatory organ donation, a national DCD protocol would need to be established. You could perhaps make donation on brain death mandatory, while DCD would be voluntary.
Are there any other decent counter-arguments?
My concern, though, is in that 11% of organ harvests. The problem I have is that using DCD to harvest from a patient who could have been saved, even once, is wholly unacceptable. The only way I can find mandatory organ donation acceptable is if there is no possibility of you being saved.
So drop DCD and go back to brain death only, and I'd be more willing to accept mandatory organ donation.
I also need some way to control for the possibility of an EMT saying "This guy won't make it." That can be much trickier territory, but I'd like to think it's an extreme minority event.
Also, to be clear, I should've phrased my quote there as "recovered were" and not "were recovered"; I've fixed it above. As long as DCD were voluntary, this would not be a problem.
Maybe I could one day code a virus that is totally cool in my system but causes a really nasty hemorrhagic fever in anyone else. The only problem with that is that it'd be impossible to donate anything to a family member in need.
I wanna devise a virus
To bring dire straits to your environment
Crush your corporations with a mild touch
Trash your whole computer system and revert you to papyrus
Side note: Rym can no longer honestly say he hasn't heard a rational argument against mandatory organ donation that doesn't rely on religion or sentiment.
Your own post about sabotaging your lungs makes the argument that people will be encouraged to sabotage themselves under a mandatory donor system. Yeah, we want that as a public policy.
Once again, "I am Scott" or "Things are different in ScottWorld" is not an argument. Tell me how any argument against was refuted.