Are You an Organ Donor ?

[mitchtv]

A recent post about seatbelt laws drew a lot of attention. many do not like these laws. I am asking if you would donate your organs if you were killed in an accident.
Disclaimer: I am an organ recipient(liver )

[Ian David]

1. I am ineligible until I have been cancer-free for 7 years.

Same goes for blood donation.

I really don't much care what happens to my body when I die. It just becomes a piece of meat.

I wouldn't mind having it sent to "The Body Farm" where forensic scientists experiment on them to see how corpses dumped in the woods decay.

I wouldn't mind giving it to a bunch of needy necrophiliacs.

I won't be in any position to care.

However, I don't want it exploited for use in cosmetic surgery (other than reconstruction of injuries) or processed into non-lifesaving pharmaceutical products.

But once I am cleared, I will again be an organ and blood donor.

[mitchtv]

9. Good answer, I will edit to add an option

[Truthiness Inspector]

51. Really? Even your corneas?

I mean, parts of your body that you did not have cancer in, even while you had cancer was the whole concept of organ donation nixed?

I do NOT know the answer to this question, so I'm not asking this in a snarky way; I am genuinely curious.

[Ian David]

57. I never asked about corneas. I could look into that one. n/t

[WildEyedLiberal]

2. I think it should be default

Organs should be harvested automatically unless a person specifically opts out on their driver's license/other official document/living will. Lives would be saved.

[Ian David]

7. Anyone killed while not wearing a seatbelt in a car, or not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle...

... should be an automatic organ donor.

[MADem]

13. WHAT?????

You're proposing "punishing" people....AFTER they are dead.

And the STATE takes on this role?

What's to stop the state from taking on the role of deciding what's to be done with people's bodies before they are even born, eh? Hell, they aren't really "alive" yet, are they?

Editing out "mistakes" that the state doesn't like, say, skin too dusky, or hair too curly, or eyes too dark, or orientation not heterosexual?

I'm continuously amazed at the ideas I see advocated on this "liberal/progressive" forum!

[RaleighNCDUer]

14. What punishment? They're dead.

I say this with the caveat that should my organs be harvested the punishment would likely be on the recipient.

[Ian David]

56. He's getting better. n/t

[spoony]

16. Why not harvest inmates too?

[SidDithers]

19. Because they're still alive...nt

Sid

[Kelly Rupert]

88. Once they're dead, sure.

[MADem]

10. No, that's utter bullshit. Mistakes would be made. Not everyone should be

a donor, due to viruses, illnesses, what have you.

To say nothing of the concept that this idea disrespects the people who have religious or spiritual objections. Or people who simply don't want to be chopped up on a table, for whatever reason.

What you're proposing is that the STATE own your body after you're dead.

That's a short, facist hop to owning it while you're still alive.

Hardly a 'wild eyed liberal' stance, either.

[WildEyedLiberal]

15. That's pretty vehement

No need to get in a jibe at me personally vis a vis my username because you disagree with me.

I explicitly stated that the person can and should have the right to opt out of it, whether for "religious or spiritual objections" or just because "they don't want to be chopped up on a table." Frankly, I think it's selfish to be so vain after your death that you'd deny a lifesaving organ to someone who needs it because you want to be buried "whole." BUT - as I explicitly stated, and which should go without saying - anyone who wants to opt out of it would be able to. So no one's being "disrespected."

Right now, bereaved family members override the deceased's wishes to donate their organs because they can't bear the thought of their loved one's organs being removed, even though their loved one is dead. There are people whose lives depend on receiving those organs. If organ donation were automatic and people had to opt out - the reverse of what occurs now, where one must explicitly opt in - thousands of lives would be saved.

[MADem]

46. I am honestly not "jibing" at your username. Those assertions you made are NOT liberal.

Not in the SLIGHTEST.

They're facist, really. Big Brotherish. You want the GOVERNMENT to decide what happens with your remains. Screw what people want to do with their own vessels, Big Brother will decide, unless you jump through a half dozen hoops (that could get more onerous if more dead folks are needed) FOR you, because you're too what--naive, irresponsible, dumb?--to make up your OWN mind!

And "opt out?" Didn't we go through this same crap with other government medical entitlement and public health/corpo-pharmaceutical Big Money programs, including the sale to states' of vaccines?

Opt out my ass. No way--you should "opt IN"--not out. And if people don't give a shit enough, or have personal reasons for, not wanting to "opt in," well, that's not MY business, it's not YOUR business, and it isn't the state's business, either. And if they don't care enough to make that active choice, do that organ donor thing (that they are asked about every time they renew their damn license) why, they ARE passively making a decision to opt out--they're leaving it up to the next of kin--not you. And not the state, either.

Lives would be saved if people stopped eating fatty meat, too. Or stopped smoking. Or couldn't have a drink, because if there was no booze, there'd be no drunks, less liver cancer, no DUIs,.... and all those lives would be saved.

Lives would be saved if we weren't such fucking fundie jerks, and weren't afraid of stem cell research, and cloning so that we could start growing replacement livers or kidneys in labs.

Lives would be saved if drugs were outlawed--we could execute the people who hand them out, and give their organs to sick folks. Let's mandate that everyone be at a healthy weight, or be sent to reeducation camps--it'll save lives. Lives would be saved if we lowered the speed limit to 40 MPH. Lives would be saved if all healthy Americans were ordered to report for bloodletting on a regular basis, so that the nation's blood supply stayed topped off--heck, the gubmint could even SELL that blood product overseas and make a ton of money!!

I rather doubt the majority sees it your way. Most Americans want LESS bullshit government interference, not more. It would only be a matter of time before Halliburton Body Chop Shop got the contract to yank out your liver, pop out your eyeballs, put your kidneys on ice, and grind up your ass meat to inject in the lips of starlets. Because that's the kind of shit that happens when you mandate this kind of invasive crap.

I don't want to live in your 'Utopia,' thanks anyway.

[WildEyedLiberal]

79. Your arguments aren't liberal, they're libertarian

Big difference. And you're clearly not interested in discussing this civilly - why don't you just call me a Nazi, you've already called me a fascist two or three times. Just get it out of your system. Yeah, I'm Hitler because I think a LIVING person's right to life supercedes a DEAD person's right to have their organs rot six feet under.

See, the funny thing is, all the bogus "comparisons" you provided pertain to LIVING people making their OWN choices. Last time I checked, dead people aren't capable of making choices. Or feeling pain, or losing their civil liberties. BECAUSE THEY'RE DEAD. The idea that corpses should have rights is every bit as ridiculous as the idea that fetuses should have rights - which you ironically bring up vis a vis stem cell research, except that if you were being intellectually honest, you'd realize that the idea of destroying an embryo to enable scientists to help LIVING people is directly analogous to harvesting organs from corpses to help LIVING people. So, you actually MADE my argument for me - why should dead people, or embryos, have more "RIGHTS" than LIVING ACTUAL PEOPLE?

[MADem]

81. Oh, cut it out. You're mad at ME because you put forth a plainly fascist argument

and I am being "MEAN" because I point it out?

I have NOT called YOU a Fascist, though, so you'd best retract that untrue statement. I've said that your ARGUMENT is a fascist one, because it IS. Go look the word up, why don't you. And stop taking bogus offense because you postulate a crappy idea that melds government control, corporate influence, and profit--that's fascism for ya--and get called on it.

The fetus argument (rather tortured, that) doesn't cut it, either. The fetus has an "executor"--the womb owner, who makes the stay/go decision for the fetus. When the person dies, they too have an executor, in the form of a stated wish on a license, or a Next of Kin who acts for them.

The embryo is not at all dissimilar to the fetus, in that the persons who possess those embryos are the "executors" too--if they give those embryos up for stem cell work, THEY--not the state, which PROHIBITS the government funding of this activity in the USA under BushCo--are making the decision as to the embryo's fate. Not the government. Or perhaps you'd like all females to be forced to donate a few eggs, so the government can have a ready supply of embryos, too?

Gimme a break. You're the one who wants Halliburton Body Parts, Inc, a government-contracted entity, to go around and grab Aunt Polly and Uncle Edgar's bits the minute they breathe their last. And fuck what their families want. Or what their wishes are. That's just insane.

You're the one who likes this half-baked plan, not ME. And when government is supervising an activity where something of value is transferred from one entity to another, that's a corporate transaction, and that's Fascism 101--even if you don't like that plain fact.

You said it, so don't blame me.

[WildEyedLiberal]

82. What a hysterical, irrational, ridiculous post

"Halliburton Body Parts, Inc?"

You are clearly incapable of discussing any issue without bomb throwing invective and name calling. What an asshole. Welcome to my ignore list, jerk. And thanks for being too wrapped up in your own (right-wing) libertarian bullshit to address any of my pertinent points.

[MADem]

85. No, it isn't. Just because you say it is does not make those assertions true, either.

It's a reasoned argument. You might try it sometime.

I can't help it if you get "offended" when people don't agree with you. That's your problem, not mine!

[iverglas]

31. my guid dog

What you're proposing is that the STATE own your body after you're dead.

Let's start by understanding that no one owns the dead body of a human being. It is a long-standing maxim of the common law that there is no property in a dead body. An individual's executors or next of kin, and failing them the state, have certain rights and responsibilities in terms of decisions regarding the disposal of the body, but nobody owns it, including the dead person. (Laws that provide for the wishes a person expressed before death to override the wishes of his/her executors or next of kin, for instance in respect of organ donation, are specific exceptions to that rule.)


That's a short, facist hop to owning it while you're still alive.

No, it very very certainly is not ... but I have to say that it would be the fastest trip down a very very long and yet purely imaginary slippery slope in history.

I suppose that if people may be imprisoned for murder, it's a mere short, fascist hop to imprisoning people for picking their noses -- or for no reason at all.

We'd all better watch out, I'd say. We're likely to tip over and slide to the bottom at any moment.

As the person you were addressing has pointed out, the proposal was for a negative-option scheme. Default is donation, expression of opposition means no donation. Not terribly onerous. Hell, the state could set up a computer registry and people could mail in postcards to get on the no-donation list, in addition to expressing their choice on their driver's licence, or anywhere else they wanted.

[MADem]

52. That's crap. ANOTHER government database. We need YOUR details.

Name, social, blood type, mother's maiden name--don't want to confuse YOU with that other John Doe, eh? After we make this huge list, this huge, HACKABLE list, this list that can be used for OTHER state purposes, why, then we'll start drawing lines through names.

That's idiotic. And Big Brotherish. No matter how much you try to mitigate it. Gee, while we're at it, let's get a sample of your DNA, too, like the military does, and keep it on file "just in case" you're found dead at the roadside, so we can know it's you.

Or for other purposes, to be named later....

Already, we have an OPT IN program. You do it with your driver's license, or, if you don't have a license but need a picture ID, your state-issued ID card.

Sorry, I do not buy your arguments. And that business of 'no property rights in human tissue' though based in common law, is increasingly being challenged, as DNA is being copyrighted, bioengineered and so forth, the trend is TOWARDS property rights, not away from them.

You can take issue with ownership, but disposal IS pretty cut and dried. Ted Williams' kid chopped his daddy's head off, froze it, burned up the body and scattered it. Most people were repulsed, but, property rights or no, he had absolute "disposal rights."

I don't get the apples and oranges comparison you made about nose picking, though. Owning a body, 'dead or alive' is not the same as murder and nosepicking. It just isn't.

[iverglas]

65. feel free to do your own shopping

You can't buy my arguments, because I wasn't selling any. No property in an argument, you know ...

ANOTHER government database.

Oh, I dunno. How about your social security file? Simple addition: refusal of consent for organ recovery after death. Accessible by designated professionals only after death. Damn, that was easy.

If the aim is to increase the number of organs available for transplant, I think a negative option system resembling that one would work sufficiently well without worrying about DNA identification of bodies found by the side of the road.

And that business of 'no property rights in human tissue' though based in common law, is increasingly being challenged

Nice quotation there. Not from me, though. I said no property in a dead body. Nothing about human tissue.

Ted Williams' kid chopped his daddy's head off, froze it, burned up the body and scattered it. Most people were repulsed, but, property rights or no, he had absolute "disposal rights."

Well, I'm a stranger to that story ... ah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Williams#Death

A public dispute over the disposition of Williams's body was waged after his death. Announcing there would be no funeral,<9> his son John-Henry Williams had Ted's body flown to the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Arizona, where the head was separated from the body and both placed individually into cryonic suspension.<10> Barbara Joyce Ferrell, Ted's daughter by his first wife, sued,<11> saying his will stated that he wanted to be cremated.<12> John-Henry's lawyer then produced an informal "family pact" signed by Ted, John-Henry, and Ted's daughter Claudia, in which they agreed "to be put into biostasis after we die."<13> Reportedly, cryonics arrangements were hastily made post mortem by John-Henry and Claudia per their family pact. Though this action upset many family members, friends, and fans, it seems to have been the children's right under the law.<14>

Details slightly different. In any event, I think you'd find that if his children had wanted to impale his head on a stick and erect it above their mantel, the state might have taken a little more interest.


I don't get the apples and oranges comparison you made about nose picking, though. Owning a body, 'dead or alive' is not the same as murder and nosepicking. It just isn't.

Yeah, you're just missing something, I guess. Like the fact that a living human being is an apple, and a dead body is a cherry pit. And that it is way, way beyond bizarrely ludicrous to suggest that if something may done to the latter, it might also be done to the former.

We permit the burial of dead bodies. Are we permitting the burial of living human beings yet?

[MADem]

80. Who are these "designated professionals?" How does the database KNOW if someone is dead?

Someone has to input the information {after they fuck with the database at no small cost to add this extra item), be available around the clock to retrieve it (people die at the darndest times!!), and not everyone is on ye olde life support when those organs come available--what, we put those guys on ice, or hook them up 'while we wait' for the database entries to be made? You're envisioning a shitload of work for the hospital, a whole new layer of government, and an opportunity to provide ANOTHER way to hack the SS database, since you'll need several dozen people in each and every hospital, medical facility, clinic, what have you, heck, even embassies overseas, ready at a moment's notice, who have access to that database. All those passwords, all those accounts....

Simple? I don't think so. More like a nightmare.

Much easier to just pull the old driver's license out of the wallet and see if there's a Y next to "Organ Donor." And if there isn't, ask the sobbing spouse if they can swipe those kidneys....

Say, since my turn of phrase bothered you, let me change it to make you happy--you apparently just didn't want to take my point:

And that business of 'no property rights in a dead body' though based in common law, is increasingly being challenged because HUMAN TISSUE, dead or alive, is an increasingly valuable commodity.

Ted's kid got his way--the head is still on ice. The complaints of others who were not executors didn't matter. And the complaints of the state, or anyone else, about organs shouldn't matter either, absent a declaration to participate by the individual or his executor.

Putting the head on a stick (another remark which is a bit far afield) might be a public health issue, or be against laws that have been on the books for centuries with regard to desecration of corpses--but if it were properly shrunk, who knows, in FL especially?

And a body is a body. It can be dead, it can be alive. It's not an apple or a cherry pit.

Your comment about burying live bodies is also a bit strange and off the mark--that's called MURDER, and we have existing LAWS against it. I don't get what point you were striving to make with that, either.

I just do not see how you manage to equate murder with nosepicking, still, unless your snot has a life of its own.

But whatever. It's just an exercise in fantasy, at any rate.

Your vision of state-mandated organ harvests is highly unlikely to ever become reality, anyway, unless you're living in a Chinese prison.

[JNelson6563]

110. I appreciate your input

Good discussion. :toast:

Julie

[ProdigalJunkMail]

61. the gov't already owns your body...

just try to do something they don't approve of with it and see how much of your body you own or even ultimately control.

sP

[Hoof Hearted]

50. Just as we must respect the fundamental integrity of a human being in life

and not presume to make choices for them about their bodies -

we must also respect them in death and NOT presume to make choices for them without their explicit consent.

[WildEyedLiberal]

83. Do people give their pre-mortem consent to autopsies?

[Kelly Rupert]

87. Actually, we already do make the choice for them.

We declare that they choose not to. With a binary choice we have to have a default, and switching it to assumed consent would save thousands of lives.

[WildEyedLiberal]

93. Fascist!!

:sarcasm:

[Ayesha]

3. Yes, but not a tissue donor

Organs are given to the neediest people, tissues are sold. I don't want any company profiting off my death!

[Kutjara]

4. Not yet.

I'm hoping to hold onto my organs for a bit longer. After I'm dead, though, you can have whatever you like.

[mitchtv]

8. with a nice Chianti , of course

heh heh

[Kutjara]

11. And some fava beans.

:)

[Warren DeMontague]

34. That was my answer.

You beat me to it.

[Mabus]

5. My driver's license tells people I'm an organ donor

I've also my husband, my family and my primary doctor. I haven't limited the circumstances under which the organs may be harvested. If I get hit by a car, struck my lightning or just keel over I want my organs, if there are any useful ones left, to be used.

[emilyg]

17. Same here.

[Buns_of_Fire]

22. So does mine. If there's anything in there worth having, they're welcome to it.

Addendum: They're welcome to it after I die, of course.

[Mabus]

25. That's the only limitation I have as well

Although I'm sure there are some people who would like the harvesting to be started now.

[Dulcinea]

27. My sentiments exactly.

Whatever they can use, they can have, & cremate the rest. Scatter my ashes over my beloved boat dock.

[Virginian]

94. The "Y" on your license does not make you a donor.

Your next of kin can overrule your decision.

Information on organ donation can be found at www.UNOS.org.
The United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS)keeps the national waitlist of people who need organ transplants.
They also keep statistics on transplants.

Your next of kin signs approval for harvesting your organs. They can decide to only give away one of your kidneys or any combination of organs.

I look at organ donation as a reciprocal arrangement. If my kidney keeps someone alive, they are also keeping my kidney alive. If I can donate, I don't have to die all at once. Pieces of me can continue to live.

[Mabus]

99. My license says "organ donor" in red capital letters on the front

and on the back it reads:

I hereby make anatomical gift effective upon my death. It is signed and dated by me and two witness. After the word "organ" it is written: All.

In addition, my family knows how I feel and the majority of them (I've got nine siblings) are also organ donors. My mother died of cancer in her digestive system (stomach, ileum, colon, etc.) and we all feel very strongly about organ donation for transplant and/or medical research. I have had notarized statements in my personal effects stating that my organs/body are to be used for transplant and/or medical research purposes. My primary doctor has notification of my decision as does the local hospital (copies of my notarized statement are on file with them).

I think I've done everything I can to insure that my wishes will be carried out. But you are right, people need to take extra steps to make sure that their wishes are carried out.

edited to remove redundant statement in the subject line.

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

102. If you have a living will

Will that cover you against some next-of-kin coming along and balking?

[Dukkha]

6. I donated a Lowry organ to a church

does that count?

[movie_girl99]

12. yes I am. Have card in wallet and family are all aware

of my wishes.

[Ino]

18. Would anyone want 50+-year-old organs?

just curious

[mitchtv]

20. Lately certain transplant bureaus have

been giving "sub prime " transplants to "sub prime" recipients. people who otherwise would be denied; too old, HIV +, etc. So the answer is probably yes.

[Virginian]

95. There is only ONE national waitlist. UNOS does the matching.

There are not transplant bureaus, there is only UNOS. www.unos.org
There is a board of transplant doctors who decide on the rules. All transplant surgeons and transplant hospitals are supposed to follow the same rules.
People who need organs are registered into the UNOS computer's waitlist. Some people register at more than one location, because distance is one of the factors considered in transplants. Some regions seem to have more donors than others.
When an organ becomes available, the donor's hospital sends the donor data to UNOS and the match is done by a computer at UNOS. The computer does not know who is rich or famous. Those factors are not considered in the matching algorithm.


Your answer is mostly correct, at least it was ten years ago.

There is a virus, CMV, that donors and recipients are tested for. If a recipient has had the virus, he can get an organ from a donor with the virus.

If the recipient has not had the virus, an organ with the virus could be fatal with the immunosuppression drugs the recipient has to take.

A healthy, 50-year-old heart would be just fine for a 50-year-old recipient. I wouldn't consider it a "sub-prime" heart, (maybe "post-prime") I would just call it a good match. If I needed organs, I would be grateful for healthy, 50-year-old organs -- or even 60-year-old organs.

[Cobalt Violet]

106. There is talk of letting heppers donate organs to heppers.

If they start to allow this I will become a donor but I will still wear my seatbelt.

[XOKCowboy]

24. Ya never know...

I'll leave it to the pro's as to what they want when I'm done with my body.

[JitterbugPerfume]

21. I signed the card a long time ago

but seriously doubt that anyone wants my 65+ yr old organs

But if they do , they are welcome to them when I an finished with them.

[XOKCowboy]

23. Ever since I did a series of shows with OD Nurses...

I've been an organ donor. Those ladies were the most dedicated people I've ever met. I traveled with them around CO showing ER and ICU nurses how to identify and prep donors after they died. They made me a believer.

If you are not an organ donor I urge you to consider it. You could be giving the gift of a better life to someone after you're gone.

[Wiley50]

26. IGave Mom's Old Lowery Holiday To Salvation Army When She Passed Away

She used to spend all evening playing old show tunes when I was a kid.

Those were the days


If you meant the physical type, I'm HCV positive, They don't want mine

[ismnotwasm]

28. Yes

And I work in the transplant field, so I get to see the "other side"-- lives being saved, or resurrected because of transplant donors. One of the coolest things in the world is to watch patients walk out of the hospital. Our floor receives heart and lung transplant recipients who need a "tune up". Lungs transplants often go to cystic fibrosis victims--young people who have their lives ahead of them--a much longer life span, people who who once nearly always died in their teens.

We're going to start a small bowel transplant program, which will change and save lives for those suffering from certain horrible diseases.

I work with fresh kidney/pancreas/liver transplant recipients ---I'm very glad for you, and hope you are doing well,I know it's not an easy road.

[mitchtv]

39. thanks, two tranplants '93 & '96

last time was a charm.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Not Here. Though I Appreciate Those Who Do, I Personally Just Don't Want To.

The thought of having my organs continue to live on after I've passed has always just creeped me out a little.

[Truthiness Inspector]

54. What's more creepy is that you would allow another to die

to prevent you from post-mortem creepiness.

As if you would know let alone be creeped out, LOL.

If your kid(s) needed a transplant and some guy/gal who was a match just selfishly and smugly said "nope!" how would you feel?

Don't be that asshole who takes stuff to the grave that could give others life.

Having said that...my response sounds harsh and I'm sorry but think about it.

When you are done with stuff, you are done with it. It doesn't mean someone else can't use it and thrive.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

63. ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

OMG your drama was too funny!

[WildEyedLiberal]

84. This is a FASCIST argument

According to some genius upthread. :eyes:

Yeah, the idea of using a DEAD PERSON'S organs to save a LIVING PERSON is real fascist.

[MADem]

90. Way to toss snide insults, there, pal. How old are you--12?

That's about your maturity level I'm seeing when I read your posts.

Thanks for showing everyone how you completely failed to comprehend my argument, too, because you're too wrapped up in your own assertions--reading IS fundamental.

I don't think organ donation is bad. But you are, once more, falsely suggesting that I think it's FASCIST.

What I think is fascist is NOT the act of organ donation, but what you proposed--that the GOVERNMENT direct people to donate their organs, even if they don't want to. See, that's not "donation" when there's no CHOICE in the matter.

Heckuva job, there, Brownie...

[spoony]

100. It's a fascist argument if you're claiming that

a person's body belongs to the collective and that people should be harvested regardless of their consent.

[WildEyedLiberal]

101. Except that NOBODY has argued that organs should be taken "regardless" of consent

I have yet to see a single solitary person argue for taking a dead person's organs explicitly against the person's consent. I have yet to see a single solitary person argue that organ donation should be made mandatory WITH NO POSSIBILITY OF OPTING OUT.

The way the word "fascist" gets thrown around here like candy pisses me off.

[spoony]

104. Consent means they must affirmatively choose to allow such a thing

To assume that affirmation is a dishonest approach. It's like saying "my neighbour hasn't told me NOT to borrow his car, so what the hell." People should not have to opt out of everything; THAT pisses ME off. You have to opt out if you don't want companies harassing you on the phone; you have to opt out if you don't want spam; why not just leave it so people have to opt IN? What's wrong with that system?

If people honestly gave a shit about other people's choices they wouldn't play this "well they didn't say they DIDN'T want to be harvested" game when we already have a perfectly respectable voluntary system as is.

[tears4terra]

60. Then...

If you find out that you need an organ transplant to live, will you refuse that option. Someone else's kidney, liver, lung, whatever in your body would be too creepy for you to live with?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Nope. That I Wouldn't Have A Problem With.

It was up to that individual to donate, and I would've appreciated their doing so, obviously. But no, I wouldn't have any problem with having someone else's organ transplanted into me.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

70. Oh How Sad For You LOL

When I first posted my reply it immediately occurred to me that some child was going to say the amazingly uncreative, glaringly obvious and immature personal attack of almost identically what you posted above. It was so predictable. But I was wondering who it was going to be and when. Now I know! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

God that just cracked me up.

[Balbus]

73. You are an expert at postdiction.

edit: Forgot my childish gif.

[Tesha]

75. You know, your stance on this issue doesn't surprise me one bit. Sad. (NT)

[AndyTiedye]

30. No. Afraid The Doctors Might be a Bit Too Eager to Harvest My Organs

Doctor Charged in Transplant Inquiry
San Francisco Transplant Doctor Accused of Ordering Drugs to Speed Up Donor Death

By ALICIA CHANG
The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES


The lawyer for a surgeon charged with prescribing excessive drugs to a disabled patient to speed up his death and harvest his organs says his client has been the subject of a "witch hunt."

Prosecutors in San Luis Obispo County said Dr. Hootan Roozrokh, 33, of San Francisco, gave a harmful drug and prescribed excessive doses of morphine and a sedative to 26-year-old Ruben Navarro, who died in 2006.

Roozrokh was charged Monday in the first such criminal case against a transplant doctor in the U.S., the county district attorney's office said.

M. Gerald Schwartzbach, Roozrokh's lawyer, called the charges "unfounded and ill-advised," saying his client "has unfairly been the subject of an 18-month witch hunt."…

http://www.abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/wireStory?id=3429672

[Raine]

72. Same here

some people will do anything to get what they want for money or fame.

[MADem]

91. Well...isn't that special.... nt

[spoony]

105. And as that's happening already, what will happen

if we give organ profiteers the de facto rights to everyone who is dying? It is flat out wrong to make humans commodities, even parts of them.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

32. My Mom can see thanks to...

a person who was an organ donor. The minute I got my first driver's license I signed my card and have never looked back. I am also registered to be a bone marrow donor.

Anything I can do when alive or dead to help someone have a better life and spend a little more time with their loved ones I am all for. :)

[Mugu]

33. When I'm done with my body

they're welcome to whatever parts they can salvage.

[dansolo]

35. Yes - and I am also in the Bone Marrow Registry

[Skittles]

42. ditto

and I have donated 25 gallons of blood products :D

[JI7]

45. how do you do that ?

[iverglas]

67. you have to be younger than I am ...

I got around to looking it up about a year ago, with the Canadian agency that handles it. And I'm too old. And I discovered that I can't even donate blood (despite the fact that lab technicians trying to get blood out of me have always told me not to go bothering the blood bank, I thought it was time I maybe tried). Because I had a relationship with a student from West Africa 25 years ago, and even though he is alive and well and teaching university back home, I fall into the class barred from donating:
"c) Have you had sexual contact with anyone who was born in or lived in Africa since 1977?"


This looks to be where you'd start looking into it, in the US:

http://www.marrow.org/

Be prepared to be disqualified! But rules may not be as stringent in the US as in Canada. We had an enormous and horrificly bad experience with tainted blood -- I have two friends who have died of Hep C, one from receiving blood and one from giving blood, if you can imagine -- and the bar here may well be higher than it really needs to be, out of the urgent need to re-establish public confidence in the blood system.

[madokie]

36. you betch 'a, once I'm dead

even with PAD my doc tells me I still have some good parts left and there's nothing I would like better than to maybe help someone have another day of life or a better quality of a day when mine is finished

[supernova]

37. Yes, it's on my driver's license

There's a little heart icon on the NC Driver's Licences for those of us who are donors.

[blues90]

38. I haven't signed up to donate

This may very well be the wrong way of thinking however I would donate if I knew the organ would only go to someone who could not afford it and the operation would be covered and free .

I would hate to help anyone out who was a pig in this world .

[Orangepeel]

40. of course. My husband owes his life to a generous donor

[Fleshdancer]

41. donate my organs to those who need them and then

donate my body to science. I love the idea of giving hope and knowledge long after I'm gone. Hopefully it will make up for the chances I missed while living.

[WillyT]

43. So... It's Too Late For My Piano Joke, Eh ???

:shrug:

[JI7]

44. how does one become a donor other than Driver's liscense ?

i have always wanted to be be a donor and got the chance when i got my driver's liscense. but how about others ? i know there are ways they can sign up to have their organs donated but i don't think most people know.

also, i assume the driver's liscense one covers donations even in cases such as if you were shot or killed in any other way where some of your organs can still be useful to others.

[XOKCowboy]

53. Here's a great FAQ from the Colorado Donor Alliance

http://www.donoralliance.org/info-page-17

The most important thing is to communicate to your family your wishes to have your organs and tissues donated upon your death.

[dddem]

58. too true.

My husband didn't like the idea of organ donation, and I was concerned that he would not respect my wishes when it comes down to it (I was also worried about whether or not I could respect his wishes). Once I agreed that I would respect his wishes - and by that I mean that I assured him that if he ever needed a transplant to survive, I would explain to the doctor that my husband says organ transplants "gross him out", and please give the life-saving donation to someone else, he changed his mind. Now we're both organ donors!

[XOKCowboy]

77. LOL

Way to go and great story. :)

[BlooInBloo]

47. Not unless something really, really awful happens to me.

[Hoof Hearted]

48. This decision is left to my husband, he knows how I feel. n/t

[Truthiness Inspector]

49. I am an organ donor. Have been since I was 18.

Once we are gone, we are gone at least in this body, and if any part of us can help another live I say rock on. Let that person live to their fullest. After all, that's what we try/tried to do ourselves.

[sleipnir]

55. No, I only have an upright piano.

n/t

[tears4terra]

59. I sure am...

Both my father and brother are alive today because of organ transplants.

I hope that after I'm gone I'll be able to make a difference for someone else who is dying/suffering.

[timtom]

62. Hell, I'm against

the mandatory use of seatbelts!

However, I AM a donor. It says so right on my Drivers License.

[w8liftinglady]

66. as someone who has worked with heart and lung transplant recipients,thank you.

Heart transplants have an incredible survival rate post-transplant.Lung transplant-not as great,but the quality of life is so much better than before the transplant.Most double lung transplants are children and teenagers with end-stage cystic fibrosis.Most single lung transplants are adults with some kind of progressive lung disease.Heart transplant patients transcend the age barrier.I have worked with babies through people in their 60's and 70's(who were 10-15 years post transplant).I want every square inch of my body donated,and have instructed my family to do so.

[Forkboy]

68. Not yet,I have to die first.

And at this rate that shouldn't be long. :)

[Raine]

71. No, I don't trust the medical establishment

to not pull the plug on me cause some rich guy pays for my parts while I still need them. x(

[SmokingJacket]

74. Yes -- it makes death less meaningless.

At least SOMETHING good comes out of a horrible event if you donate your organs...

[nonconformist]

76. No - but it's because I have trust issues with the medical establishment

When I was a little kid, my great-grandmother used to warn me not to do that, because they'd let you die on the table if a rich person needed something.

While that may be overstating things a bit, it's always stuck with me. And frankly, given the current climate, I just don't feel comfortable with it.

That said, I've told my husband that in the end, it is up to him.

[PeaceNikki]

78. Yes and a Red Cross Blood Drive Coordinator.

It's important that those who are able to donate do. And I understand personal misgivings to be "unable". I may not agree with them, but it's their right to decide.

[Kelly Rupert]

86. Personally, I think organ donation should be assumed,

with citizens allowed to enter their names in a national registry to opt out, without any questions asked.

[Shine]

89. Yup, it's a no-brainer.... Yuk, yuk, yuk....Get it: NO BRAINER!!!??

:D
I crack myself up sometimes. heh.

[appleannie1]

92. I would like to but they will not even

allow me to donate blood since I have Rheumatoid arthritis. It is an autoimmune disease.

[cgrindley]

96. No. I don't believe in it

I don't believe in it... but then again, I'm not allowed to donate organs or even blood as I lived in the UK for 4 years during the mad cow crisis, so my personal beliefs hardly matter.

[Hekate]

97. I still have my Makana Foundation card from about 35 years ago, so yes I am a donor

Plan A is for me to use up and wear out all my body parts myself, and die at a ripe old age.

Plan B is that if there is anything of use left over when I'm dead (particularly if I die in an accident while still relatively young), I certainly hope that other people can be helped. I have no problem with that concept, as I certainly can't take it with me.

I have read that some countries have laws that make donorship the default action, with provisions for individual families to speak up and refuse to donate. That makes sense, but I don't know if it would work here in the US where we have such a diversity of religious beliefs and opinions.

Hekate

[iwillalwayswonderwhy]

98. Black humor

My husband died from a brain aneurism in the early nineties. I donated everything that could be harvested. A few days after his death, the phone rang and my teenaged son picked it up. It was his cousin, who had not heard that Vic had died, and he asked my son how he was doing. My son paused for a second, and then said, "Well, parts of him are excellent."

Organ donor, yes indeed. I'll worry about this body while it's alive, I don't give a fig what happens to it after I leave it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

103. Your son has a very quick mind

I mirror you feelings. I want them to take what they can use and cremate whatever remains after that.

I'll be dead, the usefulness of my body to me is over. If someone else may be able to get a bit of mileage out of what's left, all the better.

[Cobalt Violet]

107. No, I'm a hepper.

If they start to let heppers donate to heppers I will become a donor. I believe they really should allow these types of donations.

[Lost4words]

108. I had been all my life but not after 12/12/2000

After the stolen WH I reliased that there was a 50% chance my organs might go to a repuklikan and because of that chance I have removed myself from all donar lists.

flame away.......

[bemildred]

111. Ditto that.

Social responsibility is a two-way street.

[JNelson6563]

109. I used to religiously fill out sticker for back of license

Until I read of suspicions/stories about various people possibly not having had all that could be done to save them done when it was discovered they were organ donors.

Maybe I could put a "Only if I arrive DOA" disclaimer.

Julie

[Orsino]

112. Not yet, thank goodness...

...but I have signed the card and told all and sundry. :D