Steve Jobs teams with Schwarzenegger to push organ donor registry

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 134
    A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 134
    SpamSandwichspamsandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    I hope Jobs donates abundant time on his Gulfstream to fly people out to their transplants in situations like that, for starters. (Of course, he'll have to compensate Apple for the time used).



    Indeed, even better, he should buy and run a couple of planes like that just for people in that type of situation.

    ------

    Quote from article:

    Schwarzenegger said. "Then we had great phone conversations back and forth. ... He knew that others don't have a plane waiting for them to get to a transplant."




    I would never presume that Steve Jobs NEEDS to do anything he doesn't want to, but his getting involved in this matter is probably the best thing he's ever done that will benefit others with no direct compensation for himself.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sippincider View Post


    Perhaps a little part of Apple's cash reserve could go into starting a medical technologies department.



    I think so.....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 134
    magic_almagic_al Posts: 325member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kpluck View Post


    Yep, like prisoners serving life sentences. I stopped being an organ donor years ago in protest because they give prisoners, even ones serving life sentences, organ transplants.



    Until California changes the law to allow potential donors to specify their organs not go to prisoners, I will not be a donor.



    -kpluck



    I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 134
    ouraganouragan Posts: 437member
    Quote:

    Jobs, who six years ago also beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer called an islet cell neuroendocrine tumor [...]





    But why would Steve Jobs need a liver transplant if he "beat a very rare form of pancreatic cancer"???



    Could it be that the cancer spread in the 9 months he waited for the first surgery, leading to a second surgery some 15-18 months later and, finally, a third surgery for a liver transplant?



    Was cancer caused by the LSD and other illegal drugs Steve Jobs took in his twenties?



    So many questions, so little answers.





     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 134
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Magic_Al View Post


    I agree with ktappe. Your position is indefensible. There are ethical and constitutional reasons why prisoners are not denied equal eligibility for transplants and I'd encourage you to educate and enlighten yourself.



    Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.



    Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.



    Dave
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 134
    dualiedualie Posts: 334member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.



    Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.



    Dave







    Some day I hope you're wrongly convicted and have to eat your words, because only a complete fool and a barbarian would put as much faith in the perfection of the legal system as you do.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 134
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dirtydiverdave View Post


    Before everyone goes all ga-ga about how great this LAW is - think about it for a second.



    Who is the State to MANDATE that you even make a choice??



    How about adding a check-box which says "ask my wife"...?



    How about "none of your damned business"?





    What amazes me is that everyone seems to think that it's OK to force people to declare anything either way. My organs are mine, and I have the right to be ambivalent about whether or not I want to donate them to another. I may not want to donate them today, but may change my mind tomorrow - or I may want to leave it up to my family to decide. Who knows?



    The point being - the government has no right to compel me to state what I want done either way.





    Jobs is a great guy - I'm very glad he got his liver - but he (like so many others these days) sees no problem with government intruding in areas that are none of their business.





    Dave predicts: If this law passes, it gets overturned by the Supreme Court one day.





    BTW: I agree with the poster who said that Jobs should loan out his Jet for people who need transplants. His reaction is unfortunately like many rich liberals - they see a need for something, and rather than put their own fortune at risk, they decide to try and influence government to make the rest of us go along with it. Here's one area, Steve, where you should maybe be a bit more like Bill Gates. You aren't taking any of those $$ to heaven with you. Give some to sick folks who need it.





    One last observation, then I'll leave it be... Before anyone thinks this is a right-wing attack - I happen to think that we should allow folks who want to sell their organs (or part, thereof) to do so. I'm with John Stossel on this. If my kid needed an organ to keep them alive, I'd sell everything I own to give to someone who would donate it - wouldn't anyone? So why should the State ban such kinds of things from going on? Who benefits from the status quo? Who?



    No one. That's who.



    Dave



    Great post! Someone not deluded by the subject matter who can objectively state reality! The states have no right to ask and they never should!



    This is how it starts. Soon, you'll be auto-enrolled and instead and have to go through a lengthy opt-out process if you don't wish to be on "The Registry"... The registry, how nice Another database to catalog to the public in, this one making you a target for powerful sick people.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 134
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boboosta View Post


    A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.







    This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 134
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,847member
    I should be able to sell my blood and organs. You want my liver? Pay my family for it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 134
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Obviously we need a constitutional amendment to adress that. We as a society waste far to much money on the scum we put in prison. Number one is the issue of force labor, every prisoner in a jail should be forced to work for any food he gets and any light he sees. If they can't they die - simple as that. As far as health care I can't see any good reason to offer anything for free to the inmates. They are in jail to suffer first and foremost anything else is secondary.



    Think about it this way how would you like it if an inmate left jail with a donated organ and raped or killed again. It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.



    Dave



    So what about the people in prison who evaded paying taxes or got caught with a joint? They deserve your Nazi death camp fate?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 134
    Originally Posted by boboosta

    A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pmz View Post


    This is sick and backwards, and you be ashamed and banned for ever posting such anti American, anti human garbage.



    I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 134
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,759member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post


    I should be able to sell my blood and organs. You want my liver? Pay my family for it.



    Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 134
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,759member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sippincider View Post


    Absolutely. I can't even imagine the whirlwind: knowing you're dying, then getting that phone call saying a lifesaving organ is available & you'll need major surgery within the next few hours. Yikes!!!



    Perhaps a little part of Apple's cash reserve could go into starting a medical technologies department (with emphasis on transplants).



    The iScalpel.



    No incising and suturing

    No camera
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boboosta View Post


    Originally Posted by boboosta

    A much more effective, yet simple, strategy would be to use an opt-out question on drivers' licenses. That is, "Check this box if you do NOT want to donate your organs ..." Research has shown that this would probably multiply the number of organs available for transplant because people tend to accept the default.



    I don't understand your response. I'm not saying that you try to trick anyone. I'm just saying that the scientific research shows that people tend to have a bias for going with the status quo--including not putting checkmarks in boxes. This is not my original idea. It's been suggested and researched by others. If you are worried about being tricked, then opt-out could be used in addition to the proposed California bill: The DMV official could say to the customer, "If you do not want to donate your organ's then check the box on your driver's license that says 'I do not want to donate my organs.'"



    Look at it this way: such a program would give the government a default power to remove your organs upon your death. Scary, no?



    In the terrible moments after an accident, a person's ID is often unavailable. What does Uncle Sam do then, assume yes and take that person's organs, despite what their wishes may actually be?



    If someone wants to give their organs, that's certainly their right. But they should have to very specifically opt into it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 134
    How about we do this first. Money should not decide who gets a liver first. It should go to the person that needs it the most.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post


    No big applause from me. Sorry Steve, but if you were really that grateful you'd spend a fraction your own damned billions to help others. That's called compassion and selflessness. Maybe your time in India was too far gone to remember what it means to be a Buddhist.



    So, I am to assume that because Steve has not called and cleared it with you (or given you an update on what he spends his $$'s on) that he is doing nothing?



    Get the chip off your shoulder and move on to something positive - sounds to me like he has done something positive here. Kudos for that! Don't assume the negative just because YOU DON'T KNOW.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 134
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,847member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?



    Try it out? Nope. Next in line please.



    You see, someone else will always want good organs. If you want to put all kinds of conditions on it, we'll just move to the next highest bidder. It's capitalism. In a tight market, the highest bidder accepting the terms of sale wins (or buys).
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 134
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It is simply unethical to support in any way people that are a threat to society.



    Dave



    It's unethical to put them in prison with a place to live, feed them, give them counseling, whatever job may they have in there, etc.?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 134
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post


    Fine, but who pays for the certification and emissions-testing? And if you used to party and drink a lot then there's a certain amount of depreciation in value we have to consider. Besides, I'll have to see it before I buy it. Can I try it out at least?



    Hey that's what you get when you buy used Besides I thought that ALL organs came from little old ladies that walked to church on Sundays - none of those fast living young things there son!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.