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
Well, I'd prefer a system where those who opt to not donate their organs - are not eligible to get donated organs.
Some people are willing to take, take, take but never give.
Well, I'd prefer a system where those who opt to not donate their organs - are not eligible to get donated organs.
Some people are willing to take, take, take but never give.
Although that seems like an interesting idea, it would not matter one way or another. If someone got into a situation where they needed a donated organ of a particular type, they could opt to donate others..... thereby, using your criterion, becoming eligible.
Just because (they may) make this a law, doesn't mean it's suddenly some slippery slope towards total state/government control. If you think that then you are brainwashed or simply uneducated.
We've been on that slope since the Wilson administration, a slope which is accelerating with time. Discussion on that matter is for some other forum.
For transplants, have we become so jaded that the prospect of the government picking out our flesh is no big deal???
It's almost beyond belief: it's the stuff of thriller novels, of history's worst monsters, NOT the land of We The People.
My last post on this matter (cheer if you want): If people wish to donate their organs, then by all means do so. But we all should be concerned when the government meddles with such a grave issue.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Actually, Steve's magazine reader is all the tech world is talking about. The very magazine reader that keeps Jeff Bezos up at night.
I'm with you on the importance of making yourself the healthiest you can be often through avoiding so many of the easy foods and choices. Some great research by the WHO into cancer supports your comments. The one bit I didn't quite understand though was the "drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight". What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
regarding water and body weight. Proper intake is half your weight in water in Oz's. so 150 lbs = 75 oz minimum. For every oz of caffeinated beverage you have to drink another another oz of water. Exercise, exposure to heat, salty foods, etc also require that you up your water beyond the minimum.
Actually there's an app for that... called water.
Just wanted to add water is key key key to cleansing the body of all of the toxins we are exposed to. Even if you eat clean or organic foods now, you have to clean out what has built up. When I was 15 partially I didn't understand what was safe to eat I could go on forever about everything I've learned about how toxic our food, water and world in general really are. Fortunately I educated myself and put myself back together, but this world is almost built to encourage cancers and sickness.
Anyone that has questions on this front can ask me directly with a PM. I'm more than happy to help anyone avoid suffering as we age and the toxins build up in our bodies.
Like it's been said, a drivers license is a privilege and not a right. If they wanted to mandate something like this they could, and if you don't agree with it then you don't have to get or renew your license, if it passes. ...
I mean really, people. This is not some plan to steal your organs or a plot to take away your freedom. You can ALWAYS move to a different state if you don't agree with the laws here. No one is forcing you to stay.
Move to a different state? don't get a driver's license? Sounds like the classic redneck response, "if you don't love our country get out."Even if you don't have a license you are still required to carry an ID (that carries the same formalities as a driver's license) to open a bank account, get a credit card, travel, etc etc.
You're right, it's not a right. it's a requirement.
You're on the right track with power of attorney. The names vary a bit depending on location but you can already issue a power of attorney which ought have that very effect.
This might not be the most reliable source or up-to-date document, but it seems to outline the basic idea.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Steaks are probably part of what got SJ into his current situation.
Accepting as an organ donor on your license has potential unintended consequences. Suppose you are in a car accident and in the hospital and are an organ donor on your license, there is a higher chance that they could put something in your IV and put you in a coma, or some other threatening condition. Then you have already pre-consented for donation, and there is another person at that hospital who really needs an organ you have...
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
I'm reading it as "We'll take your kidneys unless you tell us otherwise".
As I said above, often times a deceased person's identity isn't immediately known (the same period in which the decision to transplant must be made). If there isn't a card immediately available that says to NOT take organs, does the government assume "yes" and take them anyway? Or do they hold off until an answer is known, with the risk of it being too late?
Isn't that a rather personal spot-decision to make at the DMV desk?
Anyway, I never did like the idea of donor stickers (either to donate or not) for ID's. Seems like they're too prone to damage or falling off. There's gotta be a better way (ahem, Apple?).
Oh, I see. My mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by "default power." Yes, I agree that could be a problem. I was referring only to the situation where the deceased has a driver's license--in which case you could easily see whether or not she had checked/signed the organ donor box.
And I do agree that some people might be put off by a stranger asking them, on the spot, whether she wants to donate her organs. I guess the question becomes whether the lives saved overrides the embarrassment, etc., of being asked. You can avoid the embarrassment by using an opt-out system without the DMV orally asking people, but that does have the problem that some people might not read the organ-donor section of the driver's license and, against their wishes, be an organ donor.
Here's a paragraph out of professional journal about this. It does not discuss the ethical issues, just the psychological ones:
The overwhelming majority of Americans support organ donation, but fewer than half register as donors (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Why might this be so? An economist might suggest that people simply do not value organ donation enough to sign up. If so, one might create a regulated organ donation market to compensate donors or their families. Johnson and Goldstein (2003) suggest a different explanation. They argue that the specific decision that people are asked to make?to opt- in or to opt-out of organ donation?affects their likelihood of consenting to be donors. The ??default?? decision, they argue, implies a recommended action. For instance, when people are required to opt-out if they do not want to donate their organs, the suggestion is that opting-in is the favored choice. Indeed, one study found that the percentage of people agreeing to be donors shot up from 42% when people had to opt-in to 82% when they had to opt-out. The results suggest that establishing an opt-out system in the United States could significantly raise the rates of organ donation. (Walton & Dweck, p. 102).
Walton, G.M. & Dweck, C.S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives in Psychological Science. Volume 4, pp. 101-102.
Johnson, E.J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338?1339.
Accepting as an organ donor on your license has potential unintended consequences. Suppose you are in a car accident and in the hospital and are an organ donor on your license, there is a higher chance that they could put something in your IV and put you in a coma, or some other threatening condition. Then you have already pre-consented for donation, and there is another person at that hospital who really needs an organ you have...
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
Here's a paragraph out of professional journal about this. It does not discuss the ethical issues, just the psychological ones:
The overwhelming majority of Americans support organ donation, but fewer than half register as donors (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Why might this be so? An economist might suggest that people simply do not value organ donation enough to sign up. If so, one might create a regulated organ donation market to compensate donors or their families. Johnson and Goldstein (2003) suggest a different explanation. They argue that the specific decision that people are asked to make—to opt- in or to opt-out of organ donation—affects their likelihood of consenting to be donors. The ‘‘default’’ decision, they argue, implies a recommended action. For instance, when people are required to opt-out if they do not want to donate their organs, the suggestion is that opting-in is the favored choice. Indeed, one study found that the percentage of people agreeing to be donors shot up from 42% when people had to opt-in to 82% when they had to opt-out. The results suggest that establishing an opt-out system in the United States could significantly raise the rates of organ donation. (Walton & Dweck, p. 102).
Walton, G.M. & Dweck, C.S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives in Psychological Science. Volume 4, pp. 101-102.
Johnson, E.J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338–1339.
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!!!
happened to me 9 years ago today actually, I received 2 lungs, the year before I had a dry run, lungs were no good. i was born with cystic fibrosis
Accepting as an organ donor on your license has potential unintended consequences. Suppose you are in a car accident and in the hospital and are an organ donor on your license, there is a higher chance that they could put something in your IV and put you in a coma, or some other threatening condition. Then you have already pre-consented for donation, and there is another person at that hospital who really needs an organ you have...
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
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.
the treatments to get rid of the cancer probably destroyed his liver i'd imagine
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
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.
What I did say is that prison should be punishment and suffering and that the last place to send donated organs should be a prison. Prisoners just aren't worth it.
Especially in the context we have now where prisons are basically a free ride. We need to remove those freebies and turn those houses into dungeons that do society some good. It is not the wrongly convicted I worry about but rather the scum we seem compelled to let out onto the streets to go wild repeatedly.
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.?
As to that otherstuff well yeah it is unethical, especially the so called counseling. Beyound the fact that the mental health professionals are responsible for a good portion of the dangerous people on the streets you have the bigger question of how we handle those born to be criminals. Yes people are born that way so if someone is a biological failure why even try to do anything with them?
Comments
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
Well, I'd prefer a system where those who opt to not donate their organs - are not eligible to get donated organs.
Some people are willing to take, take, take but never give.
Well, I'd prefer a system where those who opt to not donate their organs - are not eligible to get donated organs.
Some people are willing to take, take, take but never give.
Although that seems like an interesting idea, it would not matter one way or another. If someone got into a situation where they needed a donated organ of a particular type, they could opt to donate others..... thereby, using your criterion, becoming eligible.
Just because (they may) make this a law, doesn't mean it's suddenly some slippery slope towards total state/government control. If you think that then you are brainwashed or simply uneducated.
We've been on that slope since the Wilson administration, a slope which is accelerating with time. Discussion on that matter is for some other forum.
For transplants, have we become so jaded that the prospect of the government picking out our flesh is no big deal???
It's almost beyond belief: it's the stuff of thriller novels, of history's worst monsters, NOT the land of We The People.
My last post on this matter (cheer if you want): If people wish to donate their organs, then by all means do so. But we all should be concerned when the government meddles with such a grave issue.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Actually, Steve's magazine reader is all the tech world is talking about. The very magazine reader that keeps Jeff Bezos up at night.
I'm with you on the importance of making yourself the healthiest you can be often through avoiding so many of the easy foods and choices. Some great research by the WHO into cancer supports your comments. The one bit I didn't quite understand though was the "drink only clean fresh water according to your body weight". What does that mean and can you expand on it a little?
regarding water and body weight. Proper intake is half your weight in water in Oz's. so 150 lbs = 75 oz minimum. For every oz of caffeinated beverage you have to drink another another oz of water. Exercise, exposure to heat, salty foods, etc also require that you up your water beyond the minimum.
Actually there's an app for that... called water.
Just wanted to add water is key key key to cleansing the body of all of the toxins we are exposed to. Even if you eat clean or organic foods now, you have to clean out what has built up. When I was 15 partially I didn't understand what was safe to eat I could go on forever about everything I've learned about how toxic our food, water and world in general really are. Fortunately I educated myself and put myself back together, but this world is almost built to encourage cancers and sickness.
Anyone that has questions on this front can ask me directly with a PM. I'm more than happy to help anyone avoid suffering as we age and the toxins build up in our bodies.
What's wrong with some of you?
Like it's been said, a drivers license is a privilege and not a right. If they wanted to mandate something like this they could, and if you don't agree with it then you don't have to get or renew your license, if it passes. ...
I mean really, people. This is not some plan to steal your organs or a plot to take away your freedom. You can ALWAYS move to a different state if you don't agree with the laws here. No one is forcing you to stay.
Move to a different state? don't get a driver's license? Sounds like the classic redneck response, "if you don't love our country get out."Even if you don't have a license you are still required to carry an ID (that carries the same formalities as a driver's license) to open a bank account, get a credit card, travel, etc etc.
You're right, it's not a right. it's a requirement.
You're on the right track with power of attorney. The names vary a bit depending on location but you can already issue a power of attorney which ought have that very effect.
This might not be the most reliable source or up-to-date document, but it seems to outline the basic idea.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14974958...or-Health-Care
Thanks for the link.
Dear SJ- Eat a steak please and get back to your senses. The tech world is not interested in your magazine reader that you conjured up while convalescing. We want small powerful open computers not large iPods.
Steaks are probably part of what got SJ into his current situation.
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
I'm reading it as "We'll take your kidneys unless you tell us otherwise".
As I said above, often times a deceased person's identity isn't immediately known (the same period in which the decision to transplant must be made). If there isn't a card immediately available that says to NOT take organs, does the government assume "yes" and take them anyway? Or do they hold off until an answer is known, with the risk of it being too late?
Isn't that a rather personal spot-decision to make at the DMV desk?
Anyway, I never did like the idea of donor stickers (either to donate or not) for ID's. Seems like they're too prone to damage or falling off. There's gotta be a better way (ahem, Apple?).
Oh, I see. My mistake. I misunderstood what you meant by "default power." Yes, I agree that could be a problem. I was referring only to the situation where the deceased has a driver's license--in which case you could easily see whether or not she had checked/signed the organ donor box.
And I do agree that some people might be put off by a stranger asking them, on the spot, whether she wants to donate her organs. I guess the question becomes whether the lives saved overrides the embarrassment, etc., of being asked. You can avoid the embarrassment by using an opt-out system without the DMV orally asking people, but that does have the problem that some people might not read the organ-donor section of the driver's license and, against their wishes, be an organ donor.
Here's a paragraph out of professional journal about this. It does not discuss the ethical issues, just the psychological ones:
The overwhelming majority of Americans support organ donation, but fewer than half register as donors (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Why might this be so? An economist might suggest that people simply do not value organ donation enough to sign up. If so, one might create a regulated organ donation market to compensate donors or their families. Johnson and Goldstein (2003) suggest a different explanation. They argue that the specific decision that people are asked to make?to opt- in or to opt-out of organ donation?affects their likelihood of consenting to be donors. The ??default?? decision, they argue, implies a recommended action. For instance, when people are required to opt-out if they do not want to donate their organs, the suggestion is that opting-in is the favored choice. Indeed, one study found that the percentage of people agreeing to be donors shot up from 42% when people had to opt-in to 82% when they had to opt-out. The results suggest that establishing an opt-out system in the United States could significantly raise the rates of organ donation. (Walton & Dweck, p. 102).
Walton, G.M. & Dweck, C.S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives in Psychological Science. Volume 4, pp. 101-102.
Johnson, E.J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338?1339.
Accepting as an organ donor on your license has potential unintended consequences. Suppose you are in a car accident and in the hospital and are an organ donor on your license, there is a higher chance that they could put something in your IV and put you in a coma, or some other threatening condition. Then you have already pre-consented for donation, and there is another person at that hospital who really needs an organ you have...
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
Here's a paragraph out of professional journal about this. It does not discuss the ethical issues, just the psychological ones:
The overwhelming majority of Americans support organ donation, but fewer than half register as donors (Johnson & Goldstein, 2003). Why might this be so? An economist might suggest that people simply do not value organ donation enough to sign up. If so, one might create a regulated organ donation market to compensate donors or their families. Johnson and Goldstein (2003) suggest a different explanation. They argue that the specific decision that people are asked to make—to opt- in or to opt-out of organ donation—affects their likelihood of consenting to be donors. The ‘‘default’’ decision, they argue, implies a recommended action. For instance, when people are required to opt-out if they do not want to donate their organs, the suggestion is that opting-in is the favored choice. Indeed, one study found that the percentage of people agreeing to be donors shot up from 42% when people had to opt-in to 82% when they had to opt-out. The results suggest that establishing an opt-out system in the United States could significantly raise the rates of organ donation. (Walton & Dweck, p. 102).
Walton, G.M. & Dweck, C.S. (2009). Solving social problems like a psychologist. Perspectives in Psychological Science. Volume 4, pp. 101-102.
Johnson, E.J., & Goldstein, D. (2003). Do defaults save lives? Science, 302, 1338–1339.
Excellent post. Thanks.
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!!!
happened to me 9 years ago today actually, I received 2 lungs, the year before I had a dry run, lungs were no good. i was born with cystic fibrosis
good for steve to finally come clean and help
Accepting as an organ donor on your license has potential unintended consequences. Suppose you are in a car accident and in the hospital and are an organ donor on your license, there is a higher chance that they could put something in your IV and put you in a coma, or some other threatening condition. Then you have already pre-consented for donation, and there is another person at that hospital who really needs an organ you have...
I would think TWICE before becoming an organ donor. Also know that there is a very evil black market in organ sale.
are you really this ignorant?
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.
the treatments to get rid of the cancer probably destroyed his liver i'd imagine
happened to me 9 years ago today actually, I received 2 lungs, the year before I had a dry run, lungs were no good. i was born with cystic fibrosis
good for steve to finally come clean and help
Wow! I can't even begin to imagine that entails.
So you're saying it would be commonplace to KILL someone without their or their family's consent because you'd have consent to harvest their organs to potentially SAVE someone else?
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like the plot of a very bad, low budget horror film and Glenn Beck talking points on universal health care.
Paranoia is its own reward.
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.
What I did say is that prison should be punishment and suffering and that the last place to send donated organs should be a prison. Prisoners just aren't worth it.
Especially in the context we have now where prisons are basically a free ride. We need to remove those freebies and turn those houses into dungeons that do society some good. It is not the wrongly convicted I worry about but rather the scum we seem compelled to let out onto the streets to go wild repeatedly.
Dave
Steaks are probably part of what got SJ into his current situation.
Steak like anything else is good for you in controlled amounts.
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.?
As to that otherstuff well yeah it is unethical, especially the so called counseling. Beyound the fact that the mental health professionals are responsible for a good portion of the dangerous people on the streets you have the bigger question of how we handle those born to be criminals. Yes people are born that way so if someone is a biological failure why even try to do anything with them?
Dave