POLL: Organ donations go to donors only?

Remove all ads!

This has been inspired by a thread in the AoLS. I understand that some people are against donating their organs on some moral principle or rule, and thats great, their body, their choice. However in making that choice to NOT be doners should they then not be allowed to receive a donated organ unless they are an organ doner? It only seems fair. Or, they can make the choice then and there if they DO recieve this organ that they themselves become an organ doner and there is NO way they can change their mind even should they not survive the surgery? Bear in mind that if this is a child then its the parents call on this decision and yes the child WILL be forced to be an organ doner despite having no say in matter, simply put they wouldn't be alive anyway.

I understand that doctors are sworn to protect all life to the best of their ability but shouldn't there be some descrimination when dealing with such a limited type of resource required to save life?

Personally I feel that unless you're an organ doner you should not be allowed to recieve organs, there's no reason why you can receive all the benefits of somebody else's "sacrifice" yet not be willing to do the same yourself.

[ September 06, 2006, 23:05: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 17 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Organ donations go to doners only? (17 votes.)

Should organ doners be the only people who can recieve organ donations? (Choose 1)
* If you recieve a donated organ you must already be a doner or agree to become a doner for LIFE (and death) before surgery. - 24% (4)
* Yes, and if they are not a doner they get no choice in the matter, they don't even get the chance to become a doner before the operation. - 0% (0)
* No, everyone should be equal in recieving organs no matter their donator status. - 76% (13)

 

Sorry, I don't agree. I don't think people should be forced into something they don't want to do and I don't think you should refuse medical treatment based on this choice, particularly with the example of a child.
I'm also not entirely sure that the question isn't fairly moot in the first place - I would have thought most potential recipients would be fully au fait with being donors as well.

As I understand it, finding a match for a particular organ can be fairly complicated in the first place so it's not necessarilly going to go to someone else - probably one of the main reasons why on (UK) average only 3 organs are transplanted per donor (Compared to 8 available - not including corneas) To not carry out the operation because of a matter of principle flies in the face of the hypocratic oath. You may as well say we won't treat murderers and rapists.

 

While it does hold a certain logic in effectively creating a sub-group of 'organ sharers', that logic gets kicked in the crotch by compassion when someone's life can be saved. Forcing a choice or refusing treatment is rather cruel, regardless of them not volunteering their own organs but taking someone else's. Perhaps a compromise of keeping track of those donated organs and...well, repossessing them upon death, if they're still good. "It was only a loaner."

 

No, you can't make people doners. While it would be sad that they would not be willing to try and help save lives after their life has been saved in the same way, there is nothing we can do about it. There's got to be some amendment that says something about freedom of organs...

 

The other thing is, people who NEED organs are often on a variety of meds and/or suffering from other conditions that make it impossible for them to be donors (note the correct spelling of the word, please!). To say that they can't receive organs because theirs aren't good enough to give to others is patently ridiculous.

 

Sounds like blatent prejudice to me. This sentiment goes directly against the spirit of organ donation. I am entirely against any prejudicial distribution of my organs after I die -- organs go to the person with the greatest need.

 

Never said those that couldn't donate at the time can't become doners and shouldn't be allowed to recieve donated organs, especially those on medication. The idea of organ donation is that when you die you give doctors permission to take anything from your body that could save a life. Some people might not have anything compatiable but at least they going to _try_.

Indeed, one would imagine that it would be moot but it isn't. There are people who recieve organs but won't donate after for some reason or another and to me that is just wrong and is the entire point behind my argument. If somebody is willing to recieve somebody else's organ then why would they be against donating their own if not for some horribly selfish reason?

 

IMO, everybody should be alowed to receive organs. To me, it seems fair that donors should get priority in receiving the ones they need, with which I mean: A higher rank on the list than they would normally have. Whether or not you have decent organs in your body that others might use sometime, everybody should let know if they want to be a donor or not.
I hope that doctors take alook at the person who gets the donors organ. I remember the thread about that famous English soccerplayer that got a new liver and started drinking right again. If there was some way to prevent that...

As for me:
When I die, you can rip me open, plunder my body for my organs and dump the rest in plastic bags next to the highway. You can get every organ you'd like, except for my brains and balls, if you can find them. They are nearly identical, I reckon.

 

I was going to propose that as well, until I realized that with the length of the lists, that's the same as denying them the organs. There will always be donors needing an organ who will shove the non-donors down the list until they die.

 

If you're in dire need of a donated organ, chances are the rest of your organs have been worn and ill treated by trying to compensate.

Plus children's organs often are too small to help an ailing adult.

Sorry, Abomination, I just don't see how it could work, though I do think everyone should be an organ donor after death, afterall you're not gonna need those peices when you become one with the universal allness. You do have a point in there though. Maybe one day everyone won't be hung up on themselves after death. . .

 

I don't think there should be conditions, however I would hate the thought of giving life to certain bastards that don't deserve it.

[ September 06, 2006, 09:36: Message edited by: Cúchulainn ]

 

Agreed.

This is where I try to put a difference. You don't have to actually BE a donor, but you should only state if you're willing to help an other out. If I would die (lets say it because of a bad liver) and have a perfect heart and I am not willing to give my heart to one who needs it, than I think I made less chance to get that liver I needed.
Why would someone be willing to accept an organ and not be willing to pass one to an other anyway?
That person should realize that if everybody would think like him, everybody would die, because there are no organs at all.

 

I would like to think that all people would be willing to donate their organs upon death since they no longer need them and it could help someone else, but I know that is a pipe dream. Nevertheless, it wouldn't be proper to dictate mandatory organ donation or we let you die.

That negates people's freedom of choice.

 

That's true, I guess. It seems I can't make up my own opinion on this matter.

Interesting:

This also works the other way around. Some people think otherwise: They don't want to be a donor, because when they do so, doctors might say: "Hey! This one has got some nice kidneys and a fine lever as well. He doesn't have much of a chance to live a 'normal' life anyway, so lets pull the plug out and harvest his organs and give them to the man in chamber T204b"

I fear this matter might keep me thinking for while...