Don't want to give organs? You might have to say so

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-ama21.html

The American Medical Association said Monday that a controversial proposal to boost organ donation merits study.

It's called "presumed consent": Anyone who dies would automatically be considered an organ donor, unless he or she had previously registered an objection.

During its annual meeting in Chicago, the AMA recommended pilot studies "in relatively small populations" to determine whether presumed consent would increase organ donations.

Presumed consent is in effect in some countries in Europe and South America. Presumed consent laws for organ transplants have been introduced in several states, but none has passed.

18 die daily waiting for organs

[shoelace414]

1. my wife has been on a transplant list for about 3 1/2 years

[thinkingwoman]

29. I hope she doesn't have to wait much longer

I'm a donor, as is my husband and teenage children. I don't understand people who want to hang on to their various parts once they've crossed over.

[NashVegas]

31. It's Not That I Want to Hang Onto My Body Parts, Per Se

Although, frankly, I do like the idea of my cells being recycled into the earth much more than I like the idea of seeing them go into the body of someone refusing to accept death as a part of life.

It's that I see what was once considered a gift is now treated as a demand. A commodity. In some parts of the world, where life is already held cheaply, it's just one more thing to sell.

[ISUGRADIA]

52. "body of someone refusing to accept death as a part of life"

you can do what you want with your own body but your attitude towards the dying is a tad cavalier. I'm sure my 18 year old cousin clinging to life who needs a heart transplant will be comforted by your words.

[thinkingwoman]

70. wow, issues. nt

[NashVegas]

83. Yeah, I Got Issues

I got issues with the emotional blackmail expressed in posts 52 & 72. I repeat: what was once considered a wonderful gift is now treated as a demand. If I should ever find myself in the position where I'm told I'll need a transplant to prolong my life, I pray I'll have the grace to do better things than pin my hopes on the unfortunate, early demise of another human being.

[DemExpat]

87. This legislation question was again turned down here in Holland

this year for exactly this reason - the aversion people have to organ donation being seen as a duty, on demand, not as a gift.

I share this sentiment, Crisco,

DemEx

[NashVegas]

91. Not Surprised

I saw your posts in this thread, it looks like we pretty much think alike, although I may be putting it into stronger language :)

And the funny thing is, if I'd just said, 'religious reasons,' people would simply shrug.

[thinkingwoman]

88. I didn't write those posts

and yet your reply to mine was filled with hostility.

I don't believe gifts should be "demanded" either. And I defend your right to keep all of your parts for eternity, and to refuse transplants for yourself.

However, nobody is killing people or demanding that they die early to provide organs.

Death is part of life. IMHO, when the death of one person (which was going to happen anyway) can be used to help another live, that is wonderful. I treasure the years I have had with my cousin who received a new kidney at a very young age.

He's in his 40s now, and his life has brought joy to many others, without depriving anyone of the number of days they were allotted.

That aside, nothing in my posts could be construed as "emotional blackmail" or warranting such hostility.

Again, issues.

[NashVegas]

92. That Is Correct

I made it clear in indication which posts I was speaking of. You posted a two word response, and I simply agreed with you and attempted to explain them, using those two as examples. Or maybe I just think that sometimes people should be called to the mat on short, flippant, comments like your post.

nobody is killing people or demanding that they die early to provide organs

Read any good prison stories set in China lately?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1FF63E5C0C728DDDA80994D9404482

[thinkingwoman]

96. did we get moved to China while I slept?

I was talking about the U.S., which I suspect you know.

As for flippant: pot. kettle. black.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

100. We're getting closer and closer....

eom

[thinkingwoman]

108. fair enough

it does certainly seem that way.

[ISUGRADIA]

118. "emotional blackmail"? I said you can do what you want with your

own body, that is your choice. I'm not sold on "assume donation unless one has opted out program". But I did note that your attitude on organ donation as a medical option was questionable.

Death is a part of life, of course, but there's a big difference between someone who's 20 facing death and might live decades with a transplant and let's say an 85 year old who smokes and with a double lung transplant maybe having a 50-50 chance to make it another year. One should fight for life and say screw death, and the other should face death with diginity.

[Gemini Cat]

72. Death is a part of life, big whoop.

However, what's wrong with living? Have you ever been around someone who needs an organ transplant? Have you ever witnessed the hell they, as well as their families go through?

[frankly_fedup2]

109. I kept the nursery at a church, and this was b4 I was an organ donor,

and there was a 3-year-old little girl that needed a kidney transplant. She was on dialysis and I'm not sure if either kidney worked. She was waiting; however, like most people, she died before anything could be done.

Even after that I didn't become a donor.

It was finding out how things are done once a person is dead that changed my mind.

However, I have to admit, some of the issues brought up by some of the other posters have me thinking.

Everything "eventually" has some kind of corruption associated with it, and I agree that this too could get to be a profitable business for some people.

However, I have heard of a way some people are willing to donate. It sounds good in a way; however, it leaves those without the cash out, and that is not right either. Except I feel those in prison do not deserve a heart transplant or a transplant of any kind.

Some people are willing to pay for a person's funeral expenses or part of them, if they will donate their organs, if found to be a match with the person paying for the expenses of the funeral. It would seem fair as it is a transaction between two people; however, that would be considered class discrimination right off the bat.

Some of you have really brought up some really good arguments tonight that make me think a little more about my decision to be a donor. It seems to me the right thing to do; however, if government gets involved, that will definitely cause me to change my mind.

Government or those we pay to do what they promise and say is more corrupted regarding money and . . . whatever. Getting tired. Major brain use involved in this here.

I'm glad everyone shared their views and hope no one was offended by mine.

[joshcryer]

136. Hmm, guess you'd never go for being immortal, eh?

We'll be there in a few hundred years. Too bad for you that you'd probably just rot away, as the last of human generations to die.

[shoelace414]

43. Don't forget

The signature on the back of your licence isn't a valid contract, they need next of kin to allow your organs to be taken.. so you need to let your next of kin know your organ wishes.

[HuckleB]

2. I'm glad this is on the table, spurring discussion.

Certainly, the current situation needs to change, whether such a proposal is found wanting or not. Hopefully it can lead to a workable, improved situation.

[livinginphotographs]

3. I guess I could see why some would have a problem with it.

I don't, though. If I'm dead, what do I care what they do with my body? Might as well recycle it into something useful.

[nodehopper]

27. there are people who cannot do it for religious reasons

If you want to be buried in a Jewish way, for example, you cannot have tattoos and your body has to be intact.

[thinkingwoman]

30. I'm Jewish, but I'm a donor

Men decided the buriel stuff. I cannot believe that G-d would be against helping others.

Of course, I also eat pork. After that, breaking buriel rules is pretty mild.

[B3Nut]

4. Well..

I don't want anybody taking my B-3 unless I'm dead....oh wait, wrong organ... :D

Nay, but seriously, brethren, if I'm dying and I can provide bits to save someone else, by all means take 'em.

TP

[Danmel]

5. I hope your wife receives an organ soon

I know two people who died waiting for transplants. Somewhat oddly, both had pulmonary hypertension and were waiting for heart lung transplants. I have the box checked off on my license and my family knows my wishes regarding this- Not gonna use any organs when I'm dead, why bury them?

I think there may be problems with creating a presumption though in cases where there are religious objections. I'm Jewish and with the exception of extremely Orthodox Jews, there is no widespread objection to organ donation. As a matter of fact, our synagogue hosted a forum on organ donation and all of the speakers said that it was within Jewish law to donate. One speaker had received a heart transplant 7 years earlier and was doing very well.

I of course hope to die of old age and I hope no one I love will ever need an organ, but since you never know, if you expect to get one if you need it, you should sign up as a potential donor too.

[JerseygirlCT]

6. Works for me

So long as I'm gone, why should I care whether my organs are used?

Too many people don't give this much thought, and too many people are suffering needlessly.

[TroglodyteScholar]

7. My main concern...

...would be for people whose beliefs dictate that a body should be kept intact after death, for whatever reason...

I've always been an organ donor...and I certainly see that the supply of organs is always shy of the demand. But why take such extreme measures when it looks (to me, at least) like there's never been any effort at a high profile public awareness campaign?

It'd also help if someone disproved the not uncommon belief that donors get less effective medical care at accident sites.

[Mizmoon]

8. Years ago I read a story in the paper about a mother

who was going to donate an organ (don't remember which one) to her daughter to save her life. The problem was that the mother was a crack addict and had to stay off of crack for a full year before the hospital would do the operation. Well, she "slipped" 7 month in and had a "dirty toxicology". The hospital reset the clock and they had to wait a full year again.

I always wondered what happened ... I never saw a follow-up story ...

[zipplewrath]

9. After Schiavo

I'm not sure one could generate much interest in giving the State any presumed authority over us. It would appear that the fundies and the freepers would use any narrow door to interfere in our health care and end of life issues. Any law that says the state can presume to intervene is going to be bothersome to me.

[NNN0LHI]

11. This is after you are dead dude

I don't care they make Soylent Green outta me after I am dead. Who cares?

Don

[zipplewrath]

51. Actually, no

Organ transplant decisions are typically made BEFORE one
has actually died. Imagine the fundies demanding the
feeding tube be left in so as to keep the organs useful
for transplant when she finally did die.

[frankly_fedup2]

67. First, the state nor federal government has no right to get into our

personal/private business. Why are the Republicans always screaming about small government and they have come up with more reasons to add another bureaucracy it's ridiculous.

Second, they have a new procedure where you can take your loved ones body (possibly after cremation, can't remember), and they are then created into a jewel of some kind. That kind of creeps me out. Kind of like my little westie I love so much. When he is gone, he is gone; however, some people are getting them stuffed to keep with them forever. Sorry, but that just seems wrong to me (my 2 cents, of course).

Third, my cousin was laying in the hospital, unable to breathe due to his damaged heart from Hodgkin's Disease as a child. He was one of the first people to have been totally cured of this type of cancer (there are different types of Hodgkin's so keep that in mind please), and this has been documented in medical books. However, the treatments he went through for years had dwarfed his growth as well as damaged some of his organs. But, while he was waiting, at the exact same time, a death-row inmate in California was receiving a heart transplant paid for by the people of California!!!!!!!! Of course, I know there has to be a match and all, but I'm sure some person who was not in jail, nor on death row, who probably could have been a match for that heart, and is no longer alive because they were not able to get a heart in time.

Fourth, I have family that own a funeral home (WARNING GRAPHIC) (if you do not want to know what they do to you when they embalm you, do not scroll down this screen.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
At the time a person is embalmed, the embalming fluid replaces the blood that is removed at almost exactly the same time. The embalmer will insert a large trocan (I think that is the word) attached to a huge hose into the chest cavity. By doing so, all the main organs (Heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, etc) are almost totally destroyed to a certain extent.

Once I understood a couple of the above paragraphs, I decided to be an organ/skin/tissue donor. My husband is well aware of this as well as my parents. I have it on my driver's license; however, if your family objects to it, and there are no documents stating that you want to be a donor, you can forget it.

Also, if you are going to be cremated, why would you want to keep anything that possibly could help give another human being a longer life?

Being an organ donor makes me feel that at the time of my own death, I will be giving more to help others then I could have ever been able to give during my lifetime.

It's a great thing.

[Jon_da_brockman]

10. I can only think of 2 reasons someone would not want to donate organs...

1 - Religous objections... is it Jahovas Witnesses that are against donations?

2 - Some medical condition, bad kidney, whatever... but the doctors can find that before donations, right?

Are there any other reasons that I do not know of?

[Gregorian]

16. I am totally against it. Personally.

I've never wanted someone chopping my body up. Even after I'm dead. I don't want it. And that's a good enough reason. I could elaborate, but it would make even less sense to most people than the reason I gave here.

[DemExpat]

18. I agree that it should be a specified wish to do this

and not an automatic assumption.

A dead person is a dead "person" - not an organic spare parts supplier.

Unless so stated before death.

In my humble view and with respect for those who need and wait for organ transplants.

I think other avenues (campaigns, education, information) of getting more donations is the best route to take

DemEx

[Nihil]

23. Fine. Opt out.

> I am totally against it. Personally.

From my reading of the OP, this isn't a problem.
You have made your decision and the ability to have your deliberate
decision is being respected. It is a good enough reason.

The principle behind this is so that the majority of people who simply
haven't considered it one way or the other can help people after their
death.

I've "opted in" by carrying a card but - from personal experience when
close relatives died - doctors still seem to require the next of kin
to say yea or nay before doing anything about it. I don't want my
wife or kids to be pestered with forms or decisions at that time but
they would understand that I've been "recycled".

There would be far more chance for lives to be saved with an "assumed
agreement" situation but this would still allow those who *choose* not
to participate (for *whatever* reason) to produce the same result as
at present.

Nihil

[NorthernSpy]

32. hands off, please!

The principle behind this is so that the majority of people who simply haven't considered it one way or the other can help people after their death.

No, the principle behind this is to create an unwilling donor population of the medically disadvantaged: uninsured people who will be worth more to their social "betters" dead than alive.

I am NOT government property!

[LiberalFighter]

93. Meaning that people will be dying mysteriously...

just so that their organs can be used.

[Nihil]

138. Why do you think that?

> No, the principle behind this is to create an unwilling donor
> population of the medically disadvantaged: uninsured people who
> will be worth more to their social "betters" dead than alive.

Anyone who feels to be "at risk" need only register their "no" vote
and they are exactly no worse off than they are today.

I acknowledge the risk of "organ-legging" (to borrow a term from the
author Larry Niven) but that risk is here already (hence the apocrypal
horror stories posted in chain emails from time to time).

If someone is going to commit such a crime today, they need only
forge a donor form (or simply find the same unscrupulous doctors
or medics that people in this thread think would be after them).

The risk exists and will continue to exist ... so how does this
affect your protection? Answer: it doesn't.

The only things that this will do are:
1) Get people thinking ahead for a change (whether to donate or not).
2) Allow more people to survive (the ones who would benefit from a
non-cremated organ).

[NoKillShelterGuy]

46. Sorry, you are wrong.

If somebody does not say either way, what gives you or the State the right to take parts of their body?

Let us say you are alive and have two kidneys and somebody needs one kidney to live. Does the State have the right to force you to give up one of your kidneys to help the other person? After all, giving one kidney is not going to kill you, is it?

One of the few things we still own is our own bodies. The Government stripping that right from us is categorically unacceptable.

Abstention is not consent.

[Nihil]

137. You are DEAD repeat DEAD ... as in NOT ALIVE ...

... but you post

> Let us say you are alive ...

Just WTF has your post got to do with this thread?

By your own logic, abstention is not opposition either:
It is neither "yes" nor "no" but literally means "don't care enough
to say either way".

[HuckleB]

121. Actually...

what a plan like this does is actually engage everyone in having to make a choice, to become, through that choice, more of a part of the community they live within.

I'm not sold on the idea, but I do see many positives from discussing it, at the least.

[NorthernSpy]

122. government "encouraging" us = ordering us around and taking our stuff

what a plan like this does is actually engage everyone in having to make a choice, to become, through that choice, more of a part of the community they live within.

My gawd, how's THAT for disingenuous? This scheme is absolutely premised on the assumption that most people will put off recording a decision until it's too late!

And it's simply not the place of government to force me to be "more a part of" The Kommunity in any case.

[HuckleB]

123. Whatever.

Calling an honest bit of dialogue disingenuous is, uh, well, disingenuous. This has been put in place elsewhere without the dawn of the end of civilization occurring. But, hey, propaganda is fun to write, isn't it? It does allow folks to remain apart from the dirty world of reality, that's for sure.

[NorthernSpy]

127. the "dirty world of reality"...

... is dirtier for some than for others. The people who belong to the AMA are privileged folk. No wonder they like this proposal: their kind are the intended beneficiaries!

Calling an honest bit of dialogue disingenuous is, uh, well, disingenuous. This has been put in place elsewhere without the dawn of the end of civilization occurring.

Oh, you mean like in Brazil?

"God forbid! ", whispered Rosa, a young Black school cafeteria assistant who had taken her own lunch break to get the stamp that , as she saw it , would save her body from greedy doctors or overly zealous mortuary police wanting to transfer her healthy young organs to some wealthy old hag. Variants of the same story were repeated up and down the line of those waiting at the Felix Pacheco Institute in Leblon, Rio de Janeiro. Most said they did not trust the state (and its police) to monitor the potential abuses of power against the bodies of the poor and the socially powerless. "Now, we are doubly afraid of being hit by a car . We were always afraid of crazy drivers, but now we have to worry about ambulance workers who may be paid on the side to declare us 'dead' before our time is really up", said Seu Jose, a house painter and a pedestrian. "Doctors have never treated us with respect before this law", said Magdelena, a domestic worker who referred to the well known scandal of sterilizations performed on poor women without their consent. "Why should we think doctors will suddenly protect our rights and our bodies after this law?"

Carlos Romero, a 52 years-old construction worker in Sao Paulo said that the law was profit-driven: "This guy has just died and now they are cutting him up. I am sure the organs will be sold. The human being is an evil animal and doctors are no exception. Who can guarantee that the doctors will not speed up death, give a little "jeitinho" < a little devious help> for the guy to die quicker in order to profit from it? I don’t put any faith in this business of brain death. As long as the heart is beating, there is still life for me." Romero has advised his own sons not to become donors: "I told them to watch out. 'There are people around like vultures after the organs of young and healthy persons like you.'" José de Almeida Cavalo, 19 years-old, a computer technician in Sao Paulo also believed that the new law was just a means for a few people to get rich on the bodies of the working poor: "The President must be crazy thinking that he can force such a law on our bodies, saying that after I die my organs do not belong to me anymore or to my family. This is really too much. They have taken everything away from us and now they still want to take our organs. People are saying that this new law is just to make it easier for the doctors, anyone can donate to anyone, it does not need to be cousin or relative. So there are no limits anymore."

[HuckleB]

129. I've met many of the intended benificiaries.

And none of the ones I've met belong to the AMA.

[high density]

133. I don't like the idea of my body being chopped up, either...

but at that point I'm dead, so I guess it's not going to matter what I think. I try to think of it as way for me to possibly leave something useful behind for somebody else.

I don't agree with making organ donation the default choice, though. It's already pretty easy to opt-in.

[AndyTiedye]

36. I Wouldn't Want Them to Hasten My Demise Because...

...someone "important" needed an organ.

If Dick Cheney needed a new heart, would any compatable person be safe?

[NorthernSpy]

54. think of all the deals your HMO could make behind your back...

This scheme does give certain parties a decided interest in curtailing treatment for some patients, so that the Harvest may begin...


:scared:

[LiberalFighter]

94. Especially since they most likely have all the needed data about us

to determine if we would be a match for someone willing to pay the big bucks.

[Skittles]

12. I think it is a good idea

I know I might get some good old flaming but enough already - too many people die waiting for organs and DEAD PEOPLE DON'T NEED THEM. Too often even the expressed wishes of a person are overridden by decisions made by the family in their grief.

[DemExpat]

13. In Belgium where this has been law for some time

there still is a growing shortage. So it apparently does not solve the problem.

http://www.nierpatient.be/varia/nieuws/
(Flemish site on kidney transplants/organ donations)

Grieving families also override the wishes of the dead person in 10-15% of the cases.

Now they are talking there about making a law that anybody declared brain dead will be rushed to a transplant center......

Sorry, I am all for people willingly donating their organs as specified in a living will, but to make it mandatory, and having a law that the state takes control over all "brain-dead" people to harvest organs is going way too far for my views of life/death/autonomy-ownership of the body (even at the time of death)

I am against this kind of legislation, but will support all of the education and information services to help people make informed choices about this.

IMHO

DemEx

[doodadem]

19. I donated a kidney

to my diabetic sister. It's still going strong 20+ years later, even though she abuses the hell out of it. In my experience, the week in the hospital going thru the matching tests, were MUCH worse than the surgery itself, because her doctor misled me. My other diabetic sister, received a cadaver kidney--twice. The match ups were just never as good.

"Sorry, I am all for people willingly donating their organs as specified in a living will, but to make it mandatory, and having a law that the state takes control over all "brain-dead" people to harvest organs is going way too far for my views of life/death/autonomy-ownership of the body (even at the time of death)". I agree with that opinion, DemEx. The potential for abuse there would be enormous. If the assumed consent currently in Belgium is still not enough, then the problem is with matching donor to recipient for whatever reasons. Again, this sounds like an excellent argument for stem cell research. Your body won't reject the organ, if it's been grown from your own cells. The fundies are obstructing right to life!

[DemExpat]

22. I totally support living donations like you did, doodadem....

as well as stem cell research and its potentials!

The article I linked is in Dutch, unfortunately, but yes, there is still a shortage of organs for donations in Belgium after several years of this law of consent unless stated otherwise, and the list is growing.

What a wonderful gift to give a loved one - I would do the same if need be.....a kidney, piece of my lung, etc.

:hug:

DemEx

[Skittles]

107. yup, that is the bottom line

stem cell research.

[Warpy]

14. They don't want mine

but I think this is probably a good idea. Approaching a family in shock at an unexpected death about organ donation was one of the worst parts of my job as a nurse. Making the whole thing automatic would have eliminated that. Donor families often find a great deal of peace just knowing that part of their relative still lives on, giving someone else a chance at life. Approaching them at the time of death was always risky, though, with screaming one of the nicer reactions.

By the time they are able to think it through and consent, the internal organs are no longer suitable, although skin, bone, corneas and other tissues can be used.

[Orangepeel]

15. Excellent! It should be an opt out system rather than an opt in system

When people arrive at a hospital, the presumption is that they will be treated, with transfusions and the like. People who have an objection certainly should be able to say "no," but the presumption should be that they will be treated.

It should be the same with procedures that will help others. If people don't want to donate family members' organs, they certainly don't have to. But, the presumption should be in favor of saving lives.

[northzax]

17. there is a simple solution

payments. no, not buying organs, but compensating the remaining family for their loss in some way (tax rebates on the estate, perhaps)

presumed consent is not acceptable, (I am a donor, by the way, although I hope to live long and well enough to ravage my organs enough that my cadaver will be fought over by medical schools) we do not have presumed consent for anything but pure emergency medicine in this country, and we shouldn't.

[NNN0LHI]

20. 18 die daily waiting for organs

Sounds like an emergency to me. Just saying.

Don

[northzax]

21. certainly, but it's someone else's emergency

not the person dying. While I beleive in continued education and bribery to get people to become donors (how about waiving the driver's license fee for anyone who becomes a donor?) people's bodies are sacrosant, and the government should stay out of them without permission. Even when they're dead.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

47. and how many die each day because they have been alive too long?

People die of natural causes. Get over it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

59. That has got to be one of the silliest posts I've ever read.

You honestly don't see a difference between some kid dying because he needs a liver and a 90 year old dying peacefully in bed?

By your reasoning, oops, almost 2000 soldiers dead in Iraq. But people die right? So what's the big deal?

If you say that it is that something can be done to prevent their deaths well...something can be done to prevent the deaths of many who need organs too.

And if you say that the difference is that it must be nature's course for some to die from need of an organ, well then what is the point of treating anything? If someone has pneumonia should they just sit home and take their chances?

[NoKillShelterGuy]

65. did the soldiers in Iraq die of natural causes?

Of course they did not.

When the government thinks it can seize the internal organs of people without their consent, we have a problem. And that is exactly what we are talking about, the government seizing internal organs without the consent of the donor.

[Lilith Velkor]

81. Old joke from GulfWar 1.0

"He died of natural causes. He took six rounds in the chest, so naturally, he died."

[noonwitch]

24. I registered with an organization

They came to my church. I won't donate my entire body to science, but my kidneys, eye tissue, liver, etc.-I won't be needing them if I'm dead. I just don't want a bunch of med students dissecting my dead body in anatomy class.

[Pithlet]

25. If it indeed helps the problem of organ donation shortage

Then I'm all for it. This isn't making organ donation compulsory, and if it saves more lives then society should take this step. I do wonder if greater awareness campaigns wouldn't also be equally as effective. I also don't believe next of kin should be able to override the decision, as they can now if I understand correctly. Removing next of kin objection, and putting more energy into awareness might be better ways to go about it.

[NorthernSpy]

26. the uninsured aren't allowed to receive organ transplants...

... unless the uninsured patient happens to raise a sufficient amount of money on his own. The hospitals won't do this sort of surgery otherwise.

And yet, under this proposal, people who would likely never have the chance to receive an organ in their hour of need will be herded into a vast donor pool for the sole benefit of those who DO have money and insurance.

That's disgusting. It's not surprising that doctors like this idea; they are simply promoting the interests of their own social class.


:puke:

[The Flaming Red Head]

38. My friend died because of that and she was a nurse

working per diem to support a young daughter. Age 39 and dead. Fuck this country

edited to add that she had been paying for infrequent doctor visits out of her own pocket and when this came up and they knew she would need a transplant, her doctor told her she was divorcing her and after that it all went downhill.

[Megahurtz]

64. Good God!

How sad.:cry: "Fuck this country" is right.

[Nihil]

141. OK ... think I see part of the problem here

> the uninsured aren't allowed to receive organ transplants...
>
> ... unless the uninsured patient happens to raise a sufficient
> amount of money on his own. The hospitals won't do this sort of
> surgery otherwise.

I am writing from the UK.
This "insured vs uninsured" argument doesn't arise (or, to be pedantic,
only affects the speed & degree of luxury enjoyed - not whether you
get a transplant or not).

I can see how you might be more suspicious in your circumstances
and apologise for overlooking this. Your place on the "slippery slope"
is already significantly further down than mine.

[ReadTomPaine]

28. Here are some questions for consideration..

1) Does the hospital charge anything at all to the recipient for the organ tissue I've donated? (A charge would include any fee listed in a hospital bill that relates to donor tissue material other than a very nominal storage or transport fee).

I have, for instance, discovered that blood "brokers" make a tidy profit on the blood that is donated, but pay nothing to the donors. I understand that organ "sale" is illegal in the USA, however I also understand that hospitals get around this by inflating fees involved with the transplant, such as 'handling, storage and transport" fees that run into the thousands and tens of thousands of dollars. This is unacceptable to me.

2) Who owns the copyrights/patents for any unusual properties that my organs or blood could reveal to handlers?

Since it's my own body and blood that would be creating these unusual proteins or other qualities, I feel that anything found in my tissues should remain the full property of myself or my estate. I have heard of several cases where unusual properties found in a donor's blood were made into commercial pharmaceutical products without the knowledge, consent or recompense of the donor.

[Horse with no Name]

39. A few answers

1. They do not pay for the organs but they do pay for the hospital care and procedures.
Of interest...once a person who has died becomes a donor--all billing on his account ceases and is charged to an account set up by the organ bank.
2. Basically once you donate, you give up any and all interests in what you donate and it can be used or destroyed in any manner in which the blood/organ bank deems fit--donation, research or otherwise.
Just curious...if you give someone a lottery ticket for a gift and they hit the big jackpot--do you expect monetary compensation since you gave them the ticket?

[ReadTomPaine]

41. My body is not a lottery, nor is my blood meant for the hospital's benefit

It's for the benefit of the recipient, and him alone, and only for the purpose expressly required. I don't want anyone peddling my flesh or copyrighting my blood.

Thanks for your reply, it's appreciated!

[Horse with no Name]

44. Most donations aren't direct donations

but instead anonymous donations. You either donate or you don't.
You may participate in a blood drive for a child or a co-worker, but what you donate isn't necessarily going to go to that ONE person, instead into a bank to be distributed to the appropriately matched person.

[Ms. Toad]

66. Neither patent nor copyright protection is available

for your blood. Copyright only protects works of authorship (literary, dramatic, musical and other artistic works) fixed in a tangible medium (it exists in a form which s capable of being copied).

Patents protect inventions and improvements to existing inventions. Your blood, per se, is neither.

[NashVegas]

95. Actually, Patents Are Available

But only to the doctors and/or pharms that create medicines based on their discoveries from donated blood & tissue. Here's an interesting lawsuit.

http://tinyurl.com/8qv6d

[Ms. Toad]

114. That is why I said "blood, per se."

Since the proposal is for presumed consent to organ donation for transplant not medical research, I decided to limit my response to that scenario - which would involve the organs or blood itself being used to extend the life of another human being, not for research to create new medicines (or for gene sequencing - another controversial are of bio patents). Just a matter of trying to accurately answer the simple question asked, without going down too many of the alternate scenarios that could play out, depending on how a not yet proposed bill is drafted.

Organs used for research generally involve some sort of informed consent with respect to any intellectual property that arises from the donation (although those granting "informed" consent may not be well enough informed to understand what they are giving up). From anything I have read, donation for research is not involved in the AMA proposal that is the subject of this thread.

If we want to go down that complicated road, resulting patents can be owned in whole or in part by the organ donor (or donors heirs or beneficiaries), although they generally are not. Whether the pharmaceutical company, the organ donor, or the inventors own any resulting patents would be decided by what is in the donation contract

[Princess Turandot]

105. When hospitals take blood donations, the blood is then sent to

a recognized blood bank such as the Greater NY Blood Bank in this area, where it is tested for various diseases, typed and separated into various used components. Hospitals BUY the blood back: they don't sell it to the blood banks. What they are paying for is the testing/screening services which get more complex all the time.

I believe that one reason that having blood banks pay for blood went out of vogue was because of the nature of the donor showing up to donate, such as vagrants, at a time when the ability to test for various diseases such as hepatitis was much more limited.

[Occulus]

33. If we would adequately fund stem cell research to maybe someday

GROW needed organs, this wouldn't be a problem... :grr:

[Gelliebeans]

86. This is precisely the answer

and one that WILL come to fruition.

[LisaL]

34. I don't like this idea one bit. A person has a right to decide

whether they want to donate the organs or not. I don't see how they can just assume the person would have wanted to donate the organs. It's just wrong.

[NorthernSpy]

35. Attention, all poor, black, and working class: bodysnatcher alert!

The literal truth is that richer, whiter folks want your body for parts. The same people who deny you healthcare hope to cannibalize your physical person so that they may extend their own precious lives. And they plan to use the power of the almighty State to help them get their hands on your hide.

A word to the wise: if you're not worth anything to those people while you're alive (and clearly, you're not), you'd better make DAMN sure you won't be worth anything to them dead.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NorthernSpy]

48. but it's true: the poor and uninsured WILL be worth more dead than alive..

My class interests are likely different from yours and the AMA's. It's not "ignorant" of me to recognize this. I have every right to defend and promote the interests of my own kind, whether you like this or not.

[Horse with no Name]

50. But then you have to assume that the Doctor's and Nurses

would have to be complicit in this practice and with my background, I don't believe this to be true.
I'm not sure what "your kind" is, but you can rest assured that when I treat patients, I don't categorize them into insured/uninsured/black/white/rich/poor and I don't know many providers that do.
If the government were running the show--then I would agree. But to be able to corrupt an entire healthcare industry to be accomplices--I don't see it happening when the majority of providers got into the business to help people, not hurt people.

[NorthernSpy]

53. funny how condescension always comes as first nature...

... to those who "just wanna help".

:eyes:

I'd have to have oatmeal for brains if I were the least bit inclined to trust anyone who was trying to persuade the government to sanction and enforce a body-snatching scheme. The very fact that such an idea occurs to them tells me what I need to know: these people are dangerous to me and my kind, and we need to defend ourselves against them.

Whether these aspiring cannibalizers like to think of themselves as caring humanitarians is not interesting to me.

[Horse with no Name]

56. Funny how paranoia comes first

to those seeking to serve hidden agendas.:eyes:

[NorthernSpy]

57. my agenda is not hidden, and my response is not "paranoia"

My response to things like this is vigilance, and I'll tell you outright that my aim is to defend working class Americans from those who wish to make such grim use of them.

[Horse with no Name]

58. And my agenda is for everyone to receive the very best healthcare,

including transplants, regardless of financial situation.
If you weren't so judgemental, you would also see where I advocated it IF there was also National Healthcare so that there wouldn't be a disparity of those that would possibly be donors not being eligible to be recipients.
I don't know which class of people you are "representing" since you don't state it, however, I know that people of all races and socioeconomic classifications sometimes need organ transplants and those that do not get them--DIE.
The common agenda would be to work together to make them accessible for everyone--erasing class and racial lines.
Terrifying people with fantastic claims of body snatching is irresponsible IMHO.

[Patiod]

85. The shortage hurts black community more than white community

Worse health (and healthcare) + more distrust of authority + religious reservations = big shortfall in organs which match.

Who is statistically more likely to need a kidney transplant at some in their life? Someone of European descent, or someone of African descent? Hint: it's the group who is more affected by hypertension and diabetes, both kidney-killers. So you wanna guess?

Ding Ding Ding - that's right! The person of African descent!!! Not the "richer, whiter" folks - the poorer, darker folks. Organ shortages disproportionately hurt African Americans.

tofhope.org/aatf/aatf-edu-resources.htm

Thanks, horse, for being the voice of reason, yet again.

[Horse with no Name]

110. Great link!

Thanks.
:hi:

[NorthernSpy]

115. disingenuous much?

People without sufficient insurance or money of their own are DENIED organ transplants. Guess who the uninsured disproportionately are? Increasing the "supply" of organs (by permitting the almighty Government to grab corpses) won't change that.

And you know it.

[NNN0LHI]

120. You make a lot of good points all worthy of consideration n/t

[HuckleB]

131. Yes, thanks for the link.

Lots of good, worthy information that needs to be spread can be found there.

[Book Lover]

111. What I see as irresponsible

is saying that this will absolutely never ever be abused. You're a nurse (I presume from your posts), so you've seen human nature at its basest and most exposed. How you can say "never"?

[Horse with no Name]

112. There is nothing ever absolute

You know that as well as I do.
I have had experience in dealing with one of the largest organ banks in the country.
You would have to have a LARGE conspiracy to pull this off and I just don't see it happening.:shrug:
From ambulance drivers, doctors, nurses, lab personnel, organ bank personnel, etc...again, I just don't see it happening.

[HuckleB]

124. EXACTLY! EXACTLY! EXACTLY! -eom-

[maveric]

37. I was always a donor till diagnosed with Hepatitis C.

I am now ineligible to donate organs, blood or plasma.

[Horse with no Name]

42. I think that this a great idea

However, I do agree if this were to be in effect, that we would also need nationalized healthcare because while I do agree completely with the concept, the fact that some would end up giving that wouldn't be eligible to receive is a pretty big disconnect and is genuinely a concern.

[ReadTomPaine]

45. "..some would end up giving that wouldn't be eligible to receive.."

This is an excellent point, and nationalized healthcare would indeed take care of that, and many other concerns, quite nicely!

[doodadem]

62. Our surgeries were paid by Medicaid

My sister has spent most of her adult life on Medicaid and Medicare. I'm sure the cost of her illness is in the $millions by now. There was no "list" for her to be on, because she had a family kidney donor. However, I don't think my other sister waited too long for her transplants either, because the people who are most critical go to the top of the list. At that time, she was also on Medicare/Medicaid. Both would have died without the transplants, as dialysis was not an option anymore.
So people without funds can and do get organ transplants. However, if these programs get cut the way they're talking about, I don't know that will continue to be the case. I know that the cost of just my week of pre-surgery testing was $30+K, and this was 20 years ago. The hospital sent that bill to my insurance co., who immediately called me and said what the hell is this? The hospital said, well, we knew you had insurance and they would pay us quicker than Medicaid!

[frankly_fedup2]

106. Well then how did an inmate in a California prison get a heart transplant?

It happened because it was during the time my cousin (who died) was listed for a heart. Of course, there is a lot more to it then the fact that there is a heart available; however, a convicted felon in prison getting a heart transplant on our money. If they can do it for a felon, seems to me that they could do it for those with Medicaid or no insurance.

This makes no sense at all.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

49. Let us extend this argument to the ridiculous....

If somebody does not say "NO!", should people be able to have sex with them?

I do not think anybody here would answer that question with a "yes".

It is the same principle, just a different subject.

[Nihil]

140. Yep, it's ridiculous!

There is one teensy-weensy difference here ... THE DONOR IS DEAD.

(Now if you're into necrophilia then that's a whole different argument
- dead boring and all that - but I was responding to the "normal" case!)

[MsAnthropy]

55. Sounds like a great idea to me

I've read someplace that they are able to use only about 1% of organs donated because of issues like timing, cause of death, etc., so the more there are, the more people are helped.

[NorthernSpy]

60. in The Australian today: "Doctor guilty of taking children's organs"

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,15688562%255E23289,00.html

LONDON: A Dutch doctor at the centre of a British hospital scandal has been found guilty of serious professional misconduct for removing organs from the bodies of 850 dead children without parental consent.

(...)


A 2001 government report into the scandal, which shocked Britain with its graphic nature, said the doctor had ordered the stripping of hearts, brain parts, eyes and heads.

The inquiry was launched after the hospital admitted that, between 1988 and 1994, staff removed and stored organs without consent.

More than 2000 pots containing body parts from about 850 infants were found at the hospital during an investigation.

Some parents had to hold three or four funerals to bury their child.

I just love the "helping" professions! There's never any question of ulterior motives with those guys...

[Horse with no Name]

63. LOL

I have to laugh and wonder why none of these loving parents noticed their child's head missing at the funeral?

[DemExpat]

68. I don't find this amusing....

as you can see from the article the parts were not used for transplants but were stored in jars....so were probably removed after the parents said goodbye to their babies.

:-(

DemEx

[Horse with no Name]

71. I suppose I find it funny

because I don't believe a word of it. I also have to wonder "if" it were true, it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC.
IF this doctor had these items in jars in a hospital--how do you even equate that with organ donation?
Besides that--bodies are released FROM hospitals to funeral homes (who would obviously note missing heads)--they don't EVER find their ways back into the hospitals.
This is pure hype and propaganda.

[DemExpat]

73. This has been on BBC and Dutch news for days now....

and I remember this case from a year or so ago.

DemEx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4112232.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/4112588.stm

Dutch news:

http://www.rtl.nl/(/actueel/rtlnieuws/)/components/actueel/rtlnieuws/2005/06_juni/21/buitenland/0621_0002_orgaandokter_straf.xml

Nederlandse arts mag nooit meer werken
De Nederlandse arts Dick van Velzen mag zijn vak nooit meer uitoefenen binnen de EU. Dat heeft de Britse medische raad bepaald.
Wangedrag
Van Velzen heeft van honderden overleden kinderen de organen verwijderd en bewaard, zonder dat de ouders er van wisten. De 56-jarige patholoog is schuldig bevonden aan ernstig professioneel wangedrag; hij loog tegen de ouders en schond de kinderlichaampjes.

Potten
De zaak kwam in 1999 aan het licht, toen in het Alder Hey-ziekenhuis in Liverpool 2000 potten werden gevonden met harten, longen en andere delen van 850 kinderen. Het Britse parlement was geschokt toen bleek dat het ook bij andere ziekenhuizen gebeurde.

Beroep
Van Velzen legde de 'orgaan-bibliotheek' aan voor nader onderzoek. Hij vindt het de fout van het ziekenhuis dat de ouders niet zijn ingelicht. Hij heeft nog een maand om tegen de uitspraak in beroep te gaan.


Edit to your edit: :-)
This serves as an illustration of the scruples of some doctors....I would say.

DemEx

[Horse with no Name]

74. I didn't see ANYWHERE in these links

about him removing heads--which was what made the original story that I "LOL"ed so ridiculous and unbelievable.
Removing organs without permission or without associated legality to store them in jars--is absolutely insane and obviously illegal...but still, has absolutely nothing to do with legal organ procurement procedures and for the original poster to use this to substantiate an argument against organ donation is completely irresponsible.

[DemExpat]

75. It serves to show 'scruples' of a doctor, how his staff cooperated,

and is thus valid to the argument of pointing to dangers in legislating assumed consent in the harvesting of live organs for transplant.

DemEx

[Horse with no Name]

77. No it isn't

One bad doctor doesn't speak for our profession any more than one bad President speaks for our nation.

[DemExpat]

78. I'm afraid it does....

:-(

Not everyone has such faith and trust in the medical profession....or government.

DemEx

[Horse with no Name]

82. You are 100 % wrong

But we will leave it at that.

[NorthernSpy]

116. ah, but there isn't just "one bad doctor"...

There are a whole slew of vested interests, ulterior motives, institutional biases, and social inequities at play. Add to all that the arrogance typically displayed by those of the medical profession, and what you wind up with a system that endangers a lot of people.

[HuckleB]

119. Exactly.

Anecdotes, especially the unverifiable type found on the Internet, offer no context. In many ways, they are dangerous, in the old, "a-little-bit-of-knowledge-is-dangerous" way.

[Nihil]

139. Factual clarification

The Dutch doctor at Alder Hey has just been struck off by the UK
medical council (earlier this week). He didn't dare to return to
the country to face the charges - whereabouts currently unknown.

The whole affair came to light when *his colleagues* reported him.

This is not a case of "remove body parts to transplant" but some
seriously fucked-up human "collecting" body parts.

Some (originally) were justified - abnormal growth, reaction to
treatment, usual scientific reasons - but as time went on, the
majority were without any rational explanation at all.

Yes, even doctors can go completely cuckoo-bananas at times.
This has as much to do with the OP as Hannibal Lecter has to do
with recipe books.

[Megahurtz]

61. Ah, the body-part selling scam....

Another racket $$$$$$$$$.

[HuckleB]

69. ?

:shrug:

[NoKillShelterGuy]

76. The medical industry has a very large vested interest

in seeing that as many transplants as are humanly possible are performed. If people die and take their organs with them, then there will be fewer transplants. If there are fewer transplants, then there is less of a need for medical care, and they can not bill as much. And do not forget, once you have a transplant, you are owned by the pharmaceutical companies. Fail to consume their products, and you are virtually guaranteed to die.

The "perfect world" scenario for the medical and pharmaceutical industry is for everybody to be on the brink of death, with only the medical and pharmaceutical industry keeping everybody alive.

[VegasWolf]

79. Right, and when no transplant is performed people die. nt

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

84. over my dead body!! they want to make money on us when we're dead? no

To guarantee these companies the "RIGHT" to "ALL" bodies is much different than "encouraging" donations from those who want to help.

They do not deserve any guaranteed jurisdiction over citizens' bodies.
If they want more access it's up to them to encourage WILLFUL donations.
And some religious beliefs clearly prohibit the mutilation of bodies after death.
A person shouldn't have to "claim" a refusal-what if they conveniently lose the non-consent forms?

They own you while you are alive, now they want to own you when you're dead.

They'll make money on me over my dead body!

[NoKillShelterGuy]

89. And when they die

they do not line the pockets of the medical and pharmaceutical industries. Unless, of course, the medical industry can steal their organs without their consent.

[HuckleB]

97. Oh brother.

I guess it's better to let people die. You know, then the "medical industry" would be dirt poor, right?!

Hmm. I guess paranoia could destroy lives.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

99. Forcing people to become organ donors without their consent

can destroy lives too.

There's no money in cures. The money is in stringing people along and "treating" them long-term.

[HuckleB]

103. Yeah, "stringing people along" is what motivates them evil...

health care professionals.

:eyes:

Got anymore paranoia to offer up?

[NoKillShelterGuy]

113. So you are saying money has nothing to do with healthcare?

eom

[HuckleB]

117. Nope.

But clearly you're saying that money is all that health care is about.

I find that to be ridiculous, overblown and out of touch.

Bye.

[NoKillShelterGuy]

125. Why do pharmaceutical companies do R and D?

it's to get the next big drug, so they can make money.

Why do companies like HCA and Sentera operate hospitals? It's to make money.

[HuckleB]

126. Can you get anymore off track than you have?

I bet you can!

Go for it!

You can do it!

:eyes:

[NoKillShelterGuy]

128. At least you do not see me

denying that money, not altruism, is what drives the medical and pharmaceutical companies.

[HuckleB]

130. Indeed.

You didn't deny that. But you did choose to live in a black and white world that doesn't exist, and I'm not sure how that helps anything. Oh, yeah, you've also mischaracterized what I've written, and I don't see how that helps anything either.

[Megahurtz]

90. There was a huge fiasco

going on here at UCI Med Center in Orange County several years ago.
There was a big scam going on the inside, illegally selling body parts (and illegally getting them):puke: and a lot of people got busted. Don't have a link because this was all undercover stuff, and the news didn't cover it. Which figures, of course.

[HuckleB]

98. Uh huh.

Whatever you say.

[VegasWolf]

80. Sounds like a great idea to me. nt

[alarimer]

101. This is wrong

This sets up a system with a huge potential for abuse.

[ismnotwasm]

102. It can get worse

There are transplant physicians promoting the idea of "allowing" folks to "sell" there organs--kidneys. Government sponsored. When the argument is brought up that the people selling organs would be disproportionately poor, the response is basically that just because people are poor, doesn't make them less intelligent or unable to make serious decisions. Very scary. There are thousands of people on waiting lists, and although I wish everybody was a donor, I have real problems with "assumed consent" I work in the field, and see ethical dilemma's often. No easy answers.

[MrSlayer]

104. Fuck this.

Doctors will be hastening the deaths of people to harvest organs. I don't like this at all.

[HuckleB]

132. Organ Donation Criteria Can Be Expanded, Studies Suggest

Organ Donation Criteria Can Be Expanded, Studies Suggest

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=25298

"What makes a donated kidney or pancreas “acceptable” for transplant? Results from two pilot studies suggest that it may be possible to expand the current acceptance criteria for deceased donors, which could significantly increase the number of organs available for transplant each year.

“We are encouraged by our success using organs from deceased donors that would ordinarily have been discarded,” said Robert Stratta, M.D., director of Transplantation Services at Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, in an interview. “Even organs donated after cardiac death can be suitable in some cases, which has been taboo in the past.”

In 2002, the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) expanded the criteria for kidney donors so that higher risk donor organs, once considered unsuitable, could now be transplanted safely. The number of kidney transplants performed at Wake Forest Baptist has doubled by using expanded criteria donors (ECDs).

In the current studies, Stratta and colleagues went a step further and looked at success rates using organs at the outer limits of acceptance criteria, which Stratta refers to as organs from “extreme” donors. The researchers found that patient and organ survival rates in transplants involving extreme donors were similar to success rates with conventional donors. Stratta reported the results last week at the American Transplant Congress 2005 meeting in Seattle, Wash., and earlier in May at the 10th Annual Congress of the International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association in Geneva, Switzerland.

..."



Can you believe it? Those dang pharmaceuticals and doctors are at it again, making money hand over fist, and for what? To save a few measly lives. Pfffft.

;)

[grannylib]

134. My daughter was killed suddenly in a car accident 7 years ago; she did

not have a donor status listed on her license, but knowing my darling girl, she would have helped anyone she could have. We couldn't donate much (there wasn't much left intact) but we were able to donate her corneas. One went to a mom who had never seen her children, and another to a little boy who had never seen his parents.
Nothing will bring her back, but knowing the joy this donation brought to two families makes me smile...and I know she is smiling too. She's perfect and whole and happy now -

I've had donor status listed on my license since I was 16; wish everyone would. If it had been my baby in need, instead of my baby dead on a slab, I would certainly hope that someone would be willing to give the way I know she would have.

[Horse with no Name]

135. Thank you for your gift

and my condolences for your loss.
I totally agree. Whatever they want of mine, they can have if it will save someone else's life or improve the quality of life.
I won't have any use for my organs when I am dead--couldn't think of a better legacy.

[DarbyUSMC]

142. My deepest sympathy. I am not waiting for a kidney because

I am not waiting for a kidney because I opted not to be screened for a transplant. For eighteen years I have been kept alive on dialysis but I'm older than dirt and hope the kidneys go to young people with their whole lives ahead of them.

Your story is inspiring. Imagine the gift of sight. What a wonderful outcome to such a terrible tragedy.

[frankly_fedup2]

144. My sister is a type I diabetic. She is on the insulin pump now. She has

been a diabetic since she was 20 and she is 50 years old now.

She has taken care of herself pretty well; however, the diabetes is taking her site. She is a teacher, and she could retire; however, I think she is afraid to.

She had to go to Charlottesville, VA, to have laser survery on one of her eyes. She was in so much pain when she got back home, she could hardly stand it. The doc had given her OxyContin and she was afraid she would get addicted to them. He only gave her like 7 of them. I told her no, she would be fine and to take them to ease her pain. She took one and she felt so great it scared her. She told me she wasn't going to take anymore and was going to flush them. I told her I'd hang on to them a day or so but she wouldn't listen. She was scared of them after hearing so many bad things about them.

Anyway, her ophthalmologist (with visits every 3 months) said she would have to have the laser treatments because she had diabetic retinopathy. If she did not have the surgery, and the retina hemorrhaged, then she would be blind in that eye. She had it in the other eye as well; however, the doc said it wasn't too bad yet. She told me he kept telling her to remember, "You will have to lose something to gain something." She said she did not know what he meant by that statement until after the surgery and her eye healed enough not to be under a bandage. She returned to the doc and he said everything looked good. Only problem was she couldn't see anything out of the eye. She would see blobs of color here and there but mostly tunnel vision. This scared her and she asked the doctor if this was going to get better over time. He told her probably not that all those little blood vessels that went into her eye were close to hemorrhaging so by doing the laser surgery, they were able to get them to were they would not hemorrhage. She could still see color, shapes, but she had no peripheral vision. She said the doctor told her that to keep from going totally blind in that eye, she gave up 70% of her eyesight. She said he brought up the remember you will have to give up something to save something? Well this was what he was talking about because if the retina had hemorrhaged, she would be totally blind in that eye. but since they were able to do the laser surgery to close all the blood vessels, her eyesight was saved somewhat. He told her that when he does the other eye, hopefully, it won't be as bad, and she won't lose as much vision out of that eye.

Not to long ago, if the diabetes took over the retinas, it would be just a matter of time before the diabetic would become blind due to hemorrhaging of the blood vessels.

Now, like my sister, she will never be totally blind, like was the fate of people not too long ago. She will always see colors and shapes well enough to get around; however, she will not be able to drive once BOTH of her eyes get to that point.

Also, the other eye could hemorrhage in between doctor's visits. No one knows for sure but now there is a chance to save some vision for diabetics. Not all experience this. Some (like my aunts) required amputation of toes. Then it would be part of the foot because of gangrene. Eventually, their whole leg would be gone and it wouldn't be long before they were gone.

I am so thankful I do not have diabetes but I know I'm high risk. I've told my sister if she ever needed a Kidney and I matched, I wouldn't hesitate, and I wouldn't.

The last sentence is what leads to the simple question I was going to ask before I got into my sister's life story about her diabetes.

My sister had told me that dialysis was only for a short period of time. She has led me to believe that a person couldn't be on it very long. You stated you have been on it for 18 years and opted out for a kidney because you are too old. I would assume by now you would have gotten a transplant. That is very selfless of you. Not many people thing of others first.

What would the freepers say? A Democrat with compassion. Wait a minute, we've always been the compassionate ones, they just stole the term but proved they wouldn't know compassion if it slapped them in head. They've proven their hypocrites, they've proven that they will lie, cheat, steal, murder (through an unlawful war), whatever it takes to reach their goals or make sure that their agenda is completed. They could care less about the American People think of what they do. They have the money and the power and they know there is nothing we can do. We can protest but what good does that do anymore . . . nothing. The media seems to afraid to even report the truth, and those that do, end up fired.

[NorthernSpy]

143. study: "Blacks, poor more likely to donate than receive transplant organs"

Study:

Blacks and poor individuals are more likely to be donors while whites and wealthier individuals are more likely to be recipients of many types of transplant organs, according to a new study in the November 2004 issue of the American Journal of Medicine. The study was conducted by Ashwini Sehgal, M.D., director of the Center for Reducing Health Disparities at Case Western Reserve University and a nephrologist at MetroHealth Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio.

The investigation examined over 100,000 transplants performed in the United States from 1996 to 2001 and found that blacks were more likely to be donors while whites were more likely to be recipients for 6 of 8 types of deceased donor transplants (heart-lung, intestine, kidney-pancreas, liver, lung, and pancreas). Poor individuals were more likely to be donors while wealthier individuals were more likely to be recipients for 7 of 8 types of deceased donor transplants.

(...)

"There are already widespread disparities in who donates and who benefits from organ transplantation. Adding financial incentives to the system might make these race and income disparities even worse," said Sehgal.

Seghal also notes that "lack of health insurance may act as a barrier to transplantation among blacks and the poor". My, what a shock that is!


If the AMA's scheme were to become law, we'd see an even greater net transfer of body parts from those who are blacker and poorer to those who are richer and whiter. Given the current conditions, such an outcome would likely be unavoidable.