So few bodies are in a state to be acceptable organ donors that I think this argument over mandatory organ donation is ridiculous. For major organs to be usable, there has to be a confluence of circumstances that leaves the organs completely undamaged after the death. Blood has to keep circulating. No contaminants can be in the body. There are other checks as well. That's the reason it's so hard to find an organ donor. We have no shortage of organ donors dying. We have a shortage of organ donors with usable organs dying.
So few bodies are in a state to be acceptable organ donors that I think this argument over mandatory organ donation is ridiculous. For major organs to be usable, there has to be a confluence of circumstances that leaves the organs completely undamaged after the death. Blood has to keep circulating. No contaminants can be in the body. There are other checks as well. That's the reason it's so hard to find an organ donor. We have no shortage of organ donors dying. We have a shortage of organ donors with usable organs dying.
Yes, and that shortage would be improved significantly by increasing the number of organ donors. If we double the number of organ donors, we should expect roughly twice as many usable organs.
So few bodies are in a state to be acceptable organ donors that I think this argument over mandatory organ donation is ridiculous. For major organs to be usable, there has to be a confluence of circumstances that leaves the organs completely undamaged after the death. Blood has to keep circulating. No contaminants can be in the body. There are other checks as well. That's the reason it's so hard to find an organ donor. We have no shortage of organ donors dying. We have a shortage of organ donors with usable organs dying.
What statistics do you base those statements on?
The fact that less than 100% of donated organs are usable is an argument for increasing the number of donated organs, not against.
Yes, and that shortage would be easily corrected by increasing the number of organ donors. If we double the number of organ donors, we should expect roughly twice as many usable organs.
Do you have data that show that half of all viable donors refuse donation, or is this an assumption?
ETA: Also, your contention that the shortage would be "easily remedied" is wrong. Even with a 100% increase in viable organs, the shroage wouldn't be gone.
From a purely utilitarian view, if your assertion is correct, then it would be good to require organ donation. However, from a purely utilitarian view, it would be good to simply shoot confirmed violent criminals in the head, removing them from society and preserving valuable time and resources. Obviously, utilitarian values are not the only ones we use to build our society.
What statistics do you base those statements on?
I base it on discussions with doctors. I didn't give you numbers because I don't have any right now.
I base it on discussions with doctors. I didn't give you numbers because I don't have any right now.
A little vague there.
I've been poking around for statistics on the size of the donor pool in the US, and so far it's been hard to get firm numbers. This article says that the rate of organ donor designations is less than 50% in most states, but there may well be a big difference between the designation rate on drivers licenses, and the actual donor rate. (Plus I don't know the Ventura Star well enough to know how thorough their reporting practices are.)
Yes, and that shortage would be improved significantly by increasing the number of organ donors. If we double the number of organ donors, we should expect roughly twice as many usable organs
There is an easy way to solve this problem, we need to sell more motor bikes.
Scott you didn't really answer the question you came up with a Scott world to deal with it.
Yeah, I know it's not referencing a specific study. Guess what, neither did the people arguing for mandatory donor status. As you said, the rate of usable organs isn't generally reported as the donor rate. The donor rate is easy to get through government statistics. However, because of medical privacy laws, determining the exact rate of viable organs that come from those who have opted to be donors is very difficult. My mom and my stepdad went through medical school, and both worked in hospitals. I take their word for it when they tell me that the overwhelming majority of bodies that come in aren't usable for organ donation.
Here is an article that describes some of the requirements for organs to be viable. Recent shifts in medical technology have let us start using things that were previously thought unusable, but for major organs viable donors are still hard to find.
ETA: Also, your contention that the shortage would be "easily remedied" is wrong. Even with a 100% increase in viable organs, the shroage wouldn't be gone.
Yes, you're right. I have since corrected my post to say "significantly improved" instead. Also, I had intended the idea of doubling as a hypothetical, but it seems that it may be close to correct anyway.
From a purely utilitarian view, if your assertion is correct, then it would be good to require organ donation. However, from a purely utilitarian view, it would be good to simply shoot confirmed violent criminals in the head, removing them from society and preserving valuable time and resources. Obviously, utilitarian values are not the only ones we use to build our society.
How is it a straw man? The assertion was that we should make organ donation mandatory. Not that increasing the donor pool would increase available organs, which is obviously true.
The questions are:
1. How much does mandatory donation actually increase the availability of viable organs, especially given that people/families can sabotage bodies to make them non-suitable for donation?
2. Even if mandatory donation significantly increases the availability of viable organs, should we impose it?
The logistical points I brought up address the first question. The philosophical points address the second.
My problem with opt-out donation is that it's tricky to define when a person is "dead" beyond recovery. We can restart hearts and save brain function minutes after the cessation of cardiac activity. Yet the universal guidelines for determining "death" allow you to declare someone dead after cardiac function ceases. You can only harvest organs when someone is "irreversibly" dead. And you need to harvest those organs quickly, because they become damaged within 15 minutes of irreversible death.
And now we get to the dilemma: this means that the potential exists for someone to be declared "irreversibly dead" when medical intervention could have saved them. But you won't know if you can save them until you try, and trying means that their organs might not be usable if they do go irreversibly dead.
And until we figure out some way to resolve the problem of when you are allowed to declare someone to be "irreversibly dead," opt-in organ donation is the only system I can support, and I cannot fault anyone for not opting in.
The potential exists that you could be placed in a situation where professionals decide to discontinue intervention that would have saved your life and instead harvest your organs, and I simply cannot accept that risk.
However, from a purely utilitarian view, it would be good to simply shoot confirmed violent criminals in the head, removing them from society and preserving valuable time and resources. Obviously, utilitarian values are not the only ones we use to build our society.
I would've thought that it should be obvious how this is a straw man, but I'll clarify if need be.
The argument was that mandatory organ donation would save many lives at little cost. You're suggesting that the same logic would lead one to kill someone rather than spend time and resources. How does killing someone rather than imprisoning them save a life? As far as I can tell it does exactly the opposite. Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what "utilitarian values" you're talking about, but I don't think anyone in this thread would hold to them.
I'm a donor, but I do worry a bit about lack of medical intervention but to me I guess its a risk I'm willing to take. I guess if I wasn't conscious while they did nothing it wouldn't be such a big deal since it would be as if I was dead. I mean to me now its horrible but if I'm unconscious I guess I won't notice anyway. What scares me about dying is how it happens, not that it happens. I don't want to die because there are things I want to do and I happen to like existing, but the main fear of death I have is dying in some horrible way. I hope that doesn't happen to me but I guess I'd rather die when I passed out after a heart attack and wasn't saved by paramedics, but saving several lives than to die being mauled by a bear and save noone.
The whole idea of harvesting organs from prisoners is an interesting idea, and one I had thought of earlier but the problem is that most prisoners have shitty organs. Most of them did drugs or at least smoked so a lot of their organs aren't usable. If we're being completely hypothetical we could use the prisoners for organ storage if we had such an increase in donations and no other way to store them. Just take some death row inmates, knock 'em out and swap out their organs. Their time comes when someone needs a shiny new liver.
Read the article I linked to. The potential for improper harvesting is hardly "little cost."
I will read it. In the meantime, my response is that it has little relevance as a mere possibility. What matters is how probable it is.
Read the article I linked to. The potential for improper harvesting is hardly "little cost."
Interestingly, in a way, it's actually putting people into a version of the famous streetcar problem - killing one person to save multiple others.
It's more commonly known as the trolley problem, I think. In this case, it involves probabilities as well as numbers of lives. The biggest difference is that the person dying might be you, which makes it harder to be impartial ^_~
Interestingly, in a way, it's actually putting people into a version of the famous streetcar problem - killing one person to save multiple others.
But the problem is that organ transplant surgery is very risky. The matrix of possible outcomes involves lots of people dying despite the best efforts of medical science, and that's a hard thing to sell to anyone.
I also value my life more than I value the life of any other individual. If my death could save a million people, OK, I would do that. But if my death had the potential to save two people, I'd want to know who those two people are. And organ donors can't pick and choose like that.
What matters is how probable it is.
Those numbers are next to impossible to determine, and EMT's don't have the luxury of calculating probabilities. They have to decide whether to pull out all the stops or not.
Quite a lot of medical science is futzy, because there are a lot of variables that are inadequately controlled, and controlling them would take so long that the patient would die in the meantime.
But the problem is that organ transplant surgery is very risky. The matrix of possible outcomes involves lots of people dying despite the best efforts of medical science, and that's a hard thing to sell to anyone.
That is true, but you can bet dollars to donuts that the person who stands by and in essence commits negligent homicide is not thinking that way.
Those numbers are next to impossible to determine, and EMT's don't have the luxury of calculating probabilities. They have to decide whether to pull out all the stops or not.
Sure, but that just means you should make the best estimate you can; generally this would involve gathering statistics.
If, hypothetically, you have a 1% chance of harvesting in a situation where you would have lived otherwise and a 100% chance of saving a life with your organs, then that comparison is equivalent to giving your life away to save 100 lives.
If I must, I shall change my blood type through sheer force of will.
I will learn organ transplant surgery just to give Joe Scott's lungs. I will devote years of tireless research to figure out how to retool all his MHCs in order to ensure his lungs can spend the rest of their earthly days as a bellows for only the finest Turkish black tobacco smoke.
If, hypothetically, you have a 1% chance of harvesting in a situation where you would have lived otherwise and a 100% chance of saving a life with your organs, then that comparison is equivalent to giving your life away to save 100 lives.
Sure, that's a great hypothetical. Too bad the situations are never that clear-cut. Ever. And getting numbers that clear-cut is impossible in most public health situations.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but your ideas do not translate into anything even remotely practical. Organ donation is a practical problem, not one that can be resolved with the application of statistics. There are simply far too many variables, and the odds calculations are dependent on so many minute factors - some of which simply can't be known before actually going forward with a procedure - that applying a mathematical model is effectively useless.
I take their word for it when they tell me that the overwhelming majority of bodies that come in aren't usable for organ donation.
But it is quite a leap from this statement (which I'm reasonably sure is correct) and saying that "We have no shortage of organ donors dying. We have a shortage of organ donors with usable organs dying." The latter set of statement requires math that relies on numbers we don't have.
The whole idea of harvesting organs from prisoners is an interesting idea, and one I had thought of earlier but the problem is that most prisoners have shitty organs. Most of them did drugs or at least smoked so a lot of their organs aren't usable.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. The people I know who've done time have a variety of backgrounds.
And does having smoked in the past actually make your organs unusable? I think not, especially after a given numbers of years have elapsed. Smokers are not disqualified from being living donors, though they must quit before the surgery.
Comments
If we double the number of organ donors, we should expect roughly twice as many usable organs.
The fact that less than 100% of donated organs are usable is an argument for increasing the number of donated organs, not against.
ETA: Also, your contention that the shortage would be "easily remedied" is wrong. Even with a 100% increase in viable organs, the shroage wouldn't be gone.
From a purely utilitarian view, if your assertion is correct, then it would be good to require organ donation. However, from a purely utilitarian view, it would be good to simply shoot confirmed violent criminals in the head, removing them from society and preserving valuable time and resources. Obviously, utilitarian values are not the only ones we use to build our society. I base it on discussions with doctors. I didn't give you numbers because I don't have any right now.
I've been poking around for statistics on the size of the donor pool in the US, and so far it's been hard to get firm numbers. This article says that the rate of organ donor designations is less than 50% in most states, but there may well be a big difference between the designation rate on drivers licenses, and the actual donor rate. (Plus I don't know the Ventura Star well enough to know how thorough their reporting practices are.)
Scott you didn't really answer the question you came up with a Scott world to deal with it.
Here is an article that describes some of the requirements for organs to be viable. Recent shifts in medical technology have let us start using things that were previously thought unusable, but for major organs viable donors are still hard to find.
The questions are:
1. How much does mandatory donation actually increase the availability of viable organs, especially given that people/families can sabotage bodies to make them non-suitable for donation?
2. Even if mandatory donation significantly increases the availability of viable organs, should we impose it?
The logistical points I brought up address the first question. The philosophical points address the second.
Here's a pretty good article from the Stanford medical journal about the issue.
My problem with opt-out donation is that it's tricky to define when a person is "dead" beyond recovery. We can restart hearts and save brain function minutes after the cessation of cardiac activity. Yet the universal guidelines for determining "death" allow you to declare someone dead after cardiac function ceases. You can only harvest organs when someone is "irreversibly" dead. And you need to harvest those organs quickly, because they become damaged within 15 minutes of irreversible death.
And now we get to the dilemma: this means that the potential exists for someone to be declared "irreversibly dead" when medical intervention could have saved them. But you won't know if you can save them until you try, and trying means that their organs might not be usable if they do go irreversibly dead.
And until we figure out some way to resolve the problem of when you are allowed to declare someone to be "irreversibly dead," opt-in organ donation is the only system I can support, and I cannot fault anyone for not opting in.
The potential exists that you could be placed in a situation where professionals decide to discontinue intervention that would have saved your life and instead harvest your organs, and I simply cannot accept that risk.
The argument was that mandatory organ donation would save many lives at little cost. You're suggesting that the same logic would lead one to kill someone rather than spend time and resources. How does killing someone rather than imprisoning them save a life? As far as I can tell it does exactly the opposite.
Frankly, I'm not sure exactly what "utilitarian values" you're talking about, but I don't think anyone in this thread would hold to them.
The whole idea of harvesting organs from prisoners is an interesting idea, and one I had thought of earlier but the problem is that most prisoners have shitty organs. Most of them did drugs or at least smoked so a lot of their organs aren't usable. If we're being completely hypothetical we could use the prisoners for organ storage if we had such an increase in donations and no other way to store them. Just take some death row inmates, knock 'em out and swap out their organs. Their time comes when someone needs a shiny new liver.
I also value my life more than I value the life of any other individual. If my death could save a million people, OK, I would do that. But if my death had the potential to save two people, I'd want to know who those two people are. And organ donors can't pick and choose like that. Those numbers are next to impossible to determine, and EMT's don't have the luxury of calculating probabilities. They have to decide whether to pull out all the stops or not.
Quite a lot of medical science is futzy, because there are a lot of variables that are inadequately controlled, and controlling them would take so long that the patient would die in the meantime.
If, hypothetically, you have a 1% chance of harvesting in a situation where you would have lived otherwise and a 100% chance of saving a life with your organs, then that comparison is equivalent to giving your life away to save 100 lives.
I will do this free of charge.
I don't disagree with you in principle, but your ideas do not translate into anything even remotely practical. Organ donation is a practical problem, not one that can be resolved with the application of statistics. There are simply far too many variables, and the odds calculations are dependent on so many minute factors - some of which simply can't be known before actually going forward with a procedure - that applying a mathematical model is effectively useless.
And does having smoked in the past actually make your organs unusable? I think not, especially after a given numbers of years have elapsed. Smokers are not disqualified from being living donors, though they must quit before the surgery.