Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday September 29 2014, @09:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the you-put-your-left-leg-in,-your-left-leg-out... dept.

ScienceDaily reports:

Researchers say there should be an international database containing the very latest information about organ donations and transplants, so policy makers can make informed decisions on whether to adopt an opt-out or opt-in system.

The call comes after a study [in the UK], carried out by The University of Nottingham, the University of Stirling and Northumbria University, showed that overall an opt-out system might provide a greater number of organs for transplant but many factors can influence the success of either system and a repository of accessible information would help individual countries decide which one would be better for them.

The research published in the online academic journal BioMed Central Medicine (BMC Medicine), is the first international comparison that examines both deceased as well as living organ/transplant rates in opt-in and opt-out systems.

[...] Professor Fergusson argues that it is imperative for transplant organizations to routinely collect data on important organ donation indices -- consent type, procurement procedure, number of intensive care beds and trained surgeons -- and make this publicly available to inform future research and policy recommendations.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Monday September 29 2014, @09:25PM

    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 29 2014, @09:25PM (#99777)
    Motorcyle riders being organ donors should be mandatory.
    --
    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @10:25PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:25PM (#99808)

      That's not fun. This motorcycle rider says:

      Sure, but no organs for you.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday September 29 2014, @11:47PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:47PM (#99839)

      Riders without helmets and drivers/passengers without seat belts should be automatic organ donors (for whatever you can still recover).
      Break the law for no valid reason, then kill yourself? We'll get something useful out of you for our trouble.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by mojo chan on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:39AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:39AM (#99909)

        Why not just apply that to all criminals? Make it part of their reparations to society.

        Of course as transplant technology gets better the demand for organs will increase. More and more crimes will be covered by the rule. Eventually demand will be so high that new things need to be criminalized to keep the supply up. One day filing a tax return late will literally cost you an arm and a leg.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Jtmach on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:50PM

        by Jtmach (1481) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:50PM (#99994)

        I'm an organ donor.
        Does that mean that I can get out of the stupid nanny state laws that only serve to protect me from myself?

        I like to think, I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I'm the kind if guy who would sit in the greasy spoon and think "Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the big rack of Barbecued spare ribs with the side order of gravy fries?" I *want* high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, butter and buckets of cheese alright? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinatti in a non-smoking section. I wanna run around naked with green jell-o all over my body reading a Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to okay pal? I've *seen* the future, you know what it is. It's made by a 47 year-old virgin in gray pajamas soaking in a bubble bath, drinking a broccoli milkshake and thinking "I'm an Oscar-Meyer Wiener".

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 30 2014, @03:20PM

          by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @03:20PM (#100026)

          > Does that mean that I can get out of the stupid nanny state laws that only serve to protect me from myself?

          If you jump on the brakes and hit the rail at 45 sideways, the seat belt will allow you to walk away or at least ride off with some nice EMTs.
          Do that without a belt and I'll have to pay at least 10 of the finest and bravest for three hours, so they can keep the highway shut down and piss off a few thousand of our fellow citizens...

          By all means, don't wear your seat belt on small midwest/desert county roads, I totally agree that's not my problem.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @09:39PM

    by keplr (2104) on Monday September 29 2014, @09:39PM (#99782) Journal

    Opt-out, I've always believed. You're not using them anymore. The selfish religious adherents can opt out if they think that's better for their immortal soul than helping a half dozen of their sick brothers and sisters.

    But it's going to soon be a moot point. We are already growing simple organs and tissues. More complicated ones will eventually be possible. I imagine future generations will be horrified that we harvested organs from the recently dead and spliced them into the living; that people died waiting for compatible organs to become available. A classic utilitarian thought experiment [wikipedia.org] won't make sense anymore.

    --
    I don't respond to ACs.
    • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday September 29 2014, @10:04PM

      by cafebabe (894) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:04PM (#99794) Journal

      There is an old Google EngEdu Video about choice, overchoice and sensible defaults [youtube.com]. From this, opt-out should be a no-brainer. However, it leads directly into the ethical dilemma where not trying too hard to save a crash victim may provide organs for multiple transplant patients. In particular, I believe that corneas are almost universally suitable for donation.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by davester666 on Tuesday September 30 2014, @06:42AM

        by davester666 (155) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @06:42AM (#99906)

        It should be opt-out, and the individual "donating" gets the final say.

        Here in Canada it is beyond stupid.

        You can indicate on your drivers license, spray paint it on your car, put it in your will, sign the form going into a hospital, go into court and declare it to a judge that you want to donate your organs when you die. Then you die. All that work you put in, worthless.

        They have to ask whomever shows up at the hospital, in presumably one of the worst moments of their lives, if it's ok to harvest organs from you.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday September 29 2014, @10:05PM

      by Nerdfest (80) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:05PM (#99795)

      Until then, if you don't sign up or opt-in, you don't *get* donated organs either. I would think this would help people see how important it is.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:19PM (#99805)

        But if you're in need of organs, you probably aren't all that healthy overall. Nobody's going to want your barely functioning kidneys and your busted pancreas, even if you offer them up in order to get a replacement for your failed liver.

        • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Monday September 29 2014, @11:42PM

          by Dunbal (3515) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:42PM (#99837)

          Let's follow your logic to its conclusion here AC. Sick people shouldn't donate organs because no one will want their (sick) organs. So in a system where you only get organs if you are a donor (healthy) and sick people can't be donors, who exactly do you need to give organs to?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:03AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:03AM (#99850)

            It's not my stupid system. It's Nerdfest's. Ask him to clarify the stupidity of it.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by mojo chan on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:41AM

        by mojo chan (266) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:41AM (#99910)

        I can't opt in for medical reasons. I also can't give blood. It's probably safe but they are not 100% sure, so would rather not accept my organs and blood.

        Under your system I would either have to opt in knowing that I will never be required to actually make good on my offer, or be simply excluded from transplant lists through no fault of my own.

        --
        const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
        • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:57AM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:57AM (#99950)

          Yes. Really, I'd prefer opt-out with same caveats, but this would work.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:10PM (#99797)

      Opt-out, I've always believed. You're not using them anymore. The selfish religious adherents can opt out if they think that's better for their immortal soul than helping a half dozen of their sick brothers and sisters.

      It isn't just religious, lots of people just feel very uncomfortable about it. You might call it superstition but it really doesn't matter why people feel that way, all that matters is that people do feel that way. If you don't take into account how people feel you risk backlash that could easily end up making the situation even worse - like people passing laws to stop DMV's from even asking about organ donation. That's the price of living in a free society, people are free to selfish, superstitious assholes.

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:34PM (#99810)

        You make a good point. Liberals and progressives often claim to be "more understanding", but then they completely fail to understand more conservative viewpoints, and sometimes even remain oblivious to this inability. This never helps their case, and like you mention, it often works very heavily against them.

        I don't think it's "superstitious" or "selfish" at all, though, to take a stance against having one's organs donated. It's perfectly reasonable if somebody wants to give up his penis for transplant onto somebody else were he to die. But it's just as reasonable for somebody to not want to give up his penis for transplant onto somebody else were he to die.

        Liberals and progressives like to go on about how important it is for a woman to have the right to control what goes on with her body, including the removal of what may be in her uterus. Yet many of them are totally incapable of extending this line of thinking to the other organs in somebody's body.

        If a woman doesn't want a fetus in her uterus, then it's just as sensible for her to not want to give up that uterus were she to die early.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:03PM

          by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:03PM (#99822)

          Liberals and progressives like to go on about how important it is for a woman to have the right to control what goes on with her body, including the removal of what may be in her uterus. Yet many of them are totally incapable of extending this line of thinking to the other organs in somebody's body.

          Bullshit. Nobody's forcing you to give any organs. Just opt-out and live happy being a hyper-sensitive selfish prima dona. But don't try to turn it into a strawman against groups you happen to dislike.

          • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @11:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @11:05PM (#99823)

            The GP said nothing about his or her own preferences. The GP merely pointed out the contradictory viewpoints that some people hold. Why did you go and bring unrelated issues into this discussion?

            • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:22PM

              by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:22PM (#99830)

              Nobody mentioned "Liberals and progressives" too, but he chose to bring them up right in the very first sentence and launch a straw man against them. His preferences are implicit.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @02:29AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @02:29AM (#99872)

                As the original AC, I think that guy added more information to the discussion by unintentionally illustrating my point rather than his agreeing with my point.

              • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:01AM

                by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:01AM (#99919) Journal

                How EXACTLY is it a "strawman" to point out political parties have patterns? Would you likewise call it a "strawman" if somebody pointed out the ultra right really don't like poor folks?

                Like it or not BOTH parties are hypocrites, supporting THE EXACT SAME SHIT when THEIR guy does it, see the left defend Obama despite him going farther on many Bush policies than Bush did, and like it or not BOTH PARTIES have patterns and tropes. The right big brother, the left big mommy, the right "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" the left "womb to the tomb".

                If you consider it a strawman every time somebody points this out? You are a political hack, no different than those that comment on HuffyPo or FauxNews....BTW I have NOT read TFA, or even TFS other than the subject line...quick tell me is it a dem or a rep that is pushing this? I bet its a dem, yes? Or maybe a think tank that supports left causes, just like the one the right trots out whenever they want to privatize something? I rest my case.

                Oh and just out of curiosity...were you one of the ones that modbombed those that asked for more info on the MO shooting artcile because they didn't know the details? Boy that was the day my hopes that this would be an actual balanced TECH site died a hard death. If all this "gleamed from HuffyPo" shit keeps up I won't be surprised to see this site die, as flamebait non tech HORSESHIT is the asscancer over on the green site and many of us came here to get AWAY from that ultra one sided groupthink circle jerking, and considering in the last 3 or 4 days have been several "HuffyPo Lite" articles that were obvious flamebait posted here and at the same time donations practically died? I really don't think its a coincidence. I swear all this flamebait circle jerk crap is starting to make Slash look "even and balanced"...maybe its time to check out pipedot..

                --
                ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:50AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @11:50AM (#99947)

                  He used the false-accusation-of-fallacy fallacy.

                  It's a pretty common debating technique these days. When somebody makes a good point that can't be logically refuted, the opponent falsely claims that one or more fallacies have been used.

                  The "strawman" and "ad hominem" fallacies are particularly abused this way.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @10:43PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:43PM (#99812)

      They implemented opt-out here, I guess 10 or 20 years ago.

      At the time, I was perfectly fine with it. I'd been thinking about getting a donor card since forever, but was too lazy to actually do it.

      I remember a lot of people were in a rage. Right-wing people were all upset about the religious and private-property part of it. Left-wing people were all about it being dictatorship.

      I just used to tell everybody: "Dude, there's people dying right now because they don't get organs. If this can result in more available organs, I really don't give a fuck. If you're so concerned about it, nobody is forcing you to donate. Just get off your lazy ass and go file an opt-out form". That would usually set it. They would say "I'm going there first thing tomorrow". Yeah, right.

      This was many years ago. I'm yet to find a single person who has opted-out. If it were really so important, they would have bothered.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:10AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:10AM (#99855)

        They implemented opt-out here, I guess 10 or 20 years ago.

        It would have been informative if you had specified the location of "here" with the name of the country or region where the opt-out you mentioned was implemented.

      • (Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:38PM

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:38PM (#100127)

        I'm not sure an opt-out system is really all that appropriate given the circumstances. My first feeling was uncomfortable about an opt-out system. I checked, and I do have the organ donor mark on my license.

        You bring up a point, the rage to this was bipartisan. Why was everybody so bothered, and how did they come from such diverse viewpoints and cultures?

        An opt-out system assumes a much higher level of maturity and courage than is present in most people. I can very easily understand, especially younger people, that the thought of death itself is upsetting and avoided. Throw it in their face, and then say you are cutting them open and harvesting their organs? That's just provocative and we should not be shocked when they react belligerently.

        It's natural for people want to have control in their lives, and our organs are kind of personal.

        Perhaps an opt-in system is just easier to work with, and even the busiest people some how find the time. It was on my license and I didn't remember till the article.

        I'm not sure I see the point either. If we are losing opportunity, just make the choice mandatory in order to get a drivers license. That's a privilege and not a right, and a rather popular activity. I can see a rather large database of those choices becoming available soon after that would become policy.

        --
        Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
    • (Score: 2) by Snotnose on Monday September 29 2014, @11:06PM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:06PM (#99824)

      Opt-out, with the caveat that if you opt out you are not eligible for a transplant. If you aren't willing to give what is useless to you, why should you receive what is useless to somebody else?

      --
      Why shouldn't we judge a book by it's cover? It's got the author, title, and a summary of what the book's about.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:45AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:45AM (#99911)

      Opt-out, I've always believed. You're not using them anymore.

      Not necessarily true. We recently had a case here in Denmark (not China or some banana republic), where a the parents of a young woman refused giving her organs for transplant (though the young woman was registered as a donor), because that meant they wouldn't have time to say goodbye.

      Which makes sense, the organs need to be still working.

      The problem was that a few hours after they refused giving her organs up for donation, she started waking up. She was not happy when she was informed that her parents refusal was the only reason she was still alive.

      As long as there is not test that can tell for sure whether you are going to wake up or not, you don't really know if you are going to need those organs yourself.

      • (Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:41PM

        by Yog-Yogguth (1862) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 01 2014, @12:41PM (#100424) Journal

        Have link? Doesn't have to be in English, can be Danish or other language.

        --
        Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Tuesday September 30 2014, @08:33AM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday September 30 2014, @08:33AM (#99914) Journal

      The problem is...doctors are human. They have prejudices, values you may or may not agree with, and I can assure you "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" HAS played out in hospitals before. Put yourself in the doctor's shoes...you got three dying kids that could be saved OR you can give a little more time to the 30 something scumbag who may or may not pull through...who would YOU choose?

      My mom spent her career between critical care and home health and I can tell you its really not that difficult to do, especially with head injuries. There has been cases when it was some adorable little girl where some doc wasted the organs because he just didn't want to accept little Suzy was toast and on the flip side there was a couple of cases where some scummy guy got his head bashed in a bar fight where mom really felt they didn't let the brain swelling go down enough to tell one way or another before they were stripping him like a used Buick....you'll find doctors really don't get contradicted all that often on these calls.

      I mean sure if you had a "never fail" way of telling one from the other? Fine and dandy but let us not forget they recently had a doctor apply electricity to long term coma patients and get signs of wakening, not to mention there is that girl who wrote a book about being trapped in "a grey room" while they argued over whether to pull her plug and kill her.

      As others noted the desire for organs is only gonna go up and I worry that this will only apply more pressure, hell look at Jobs getting an organ when he had fricking cancer because he cut a big enough check. Then there is the unintended consequences...did everybody just forget where the LVAD came from that saves thousands every year? It came from research into an artificial heart....research that would most likely never have happened if organs were plentiful.

      So if you want to run ads, raise awareness, try to get people to donate? Fine but lets not be pussies and pretend that this isn't the same douchebaggery that we rail against when corps do it to get at your wallet...there is a reason why opt-out has such rep, its because its used to prey upon not only those too lazy but those that do not understand how to opt out or don't even know it exists...are we REALLY gonna throw our morals out the fucking window and become giant hypocrites because its something that we support? If so we might as well change the name to HuffyPo or FauxNews since it all okay as long as "our" side does it....because we are moral and just and perfect, right?

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: 1) by GWRedDragon on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:28AM

        by GWRedDragon (3504) on Wednesday October 01 2014, @01:28AM (#100213)

        SPOT ON.

        Additionally: choosing when to 'pull the plug' is always a fuzzy judgment call. It comes down to this: who owns your body, you or the state?

        If you own your body, then you get to use it until all reasonable doubts have been exhausted. If the state owns it, you merely get to stay alive as long as it seems appropriate, then they can strip you for parts for the good of society. These two options are directly analogous to opt-in vs. opt-out. It is a question of where the burden rests in a questionable situation, similar to a legal burden of proof.

        Opt-out makes you go out of your way to ensure your survival in fuzzy situations. Opt-in ensures your survival whenever possible by default. Because let's not lie to ourselves here: making yourself an organ donor is a conscious choice that you are willing to accept the risk of dying when you don't need to in exchange for the chance to help others. That is not a choice the state should be empowered to make for you.

        --
        [Insert witty message here]
        • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:13AM

          by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday October 01 2014, @05:13AM (#100300) Journal

          Again if we had a foolproof way of saying "Yes short of jesus walking through that door and raising their ass they are absolutely dead as a doornail, no doubts at all" then i would have NO problem with this...but that isn't reality. Reality is we know just slightly above jack and shit when it comes to the brain, we don't know why a tiny hit will kill one while having half their brain crushed would leave another still functional, why some people have brains that seem to be able to reroute past injury given time, others can't...there is just so damned much we do not know.

          Look at how in the 40s and 50s we though asbestos and radiation were great "modern miracles", how we though a lobotomy was a legit treatment for all kinds of mental illness...now we look upon those days with horror at just how backwards we were...who is to say we won't end up finding out the same when it comes to the brain? We recently had a doc make headlines by having partial "awakenings" style responses from those in deep coma by puling a Frankenstein and giving their brains an electrical jumpstart, what happens if it turns out you can do something similar with head injuries?

          But to me the most damning thing is not a single person here wouldn't be screaming if it was a corp hitting them with "opt out" charges...why? Because we know opt out is mainly used for deception because there are many that will either not know how to opt out or who won't even notice a charge added to the bill...only in this case the bill is your very life! Are we REALLY so hypocritical that we will stoop to the same underhanded shit the telemarketers do just because WE decide the "ends justify the means"? Where does this end? Bet it wouldn't be hard to get convicted murderers and child molesters to be added to the list....see the problem? the SECOND you compromise your integrity because "the ends justify it" then the next time will be that much easier. there is a reason why the slippery slope is so well known, its because IT IS TRUE, look at how we went from Bush II saying "We only need to watch those in the Axis of Evil" to suddenly we are treated like criminals and we have "constitution free zones" covering a third of the population!

          So if you want to get celebs to make ads, put up billboards, raise awareness to get more to join? I have again NO problem with that, but the second you stoop to the methods of the enemy you BECOME that enemy, and I for one hope we are better than that.

          --
          ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ghost on Monday September 29 2014, @09:49PM

    by ghost (4467) on Monday September 29 2014, @09:49PM (#99789) Journal

    There's more demand than supply. Yet the one thing known to increase supply (ie, money) is out of bounds. For the donor, that is. Certainly not for everyone else (hospitals, doctors, insurance companies, the other patient, etc).

    • (Score: 1) by strattitarius on Monday September 29 2014, @10:11PM

      by strattitarius (3191) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:11PM (#99801) Journal
      And I extend that to blood. Know why I haven't given blood... because I am not that stupid! If it's really that much in demand, then the least you could do is cover the gas to drive to the donation place! $100 for a couple of usable pints? SOLD!

      Until then I cannot fathom why I would give you something you will turn around and sell, at a profit, and obfuscate the costs through ungodly high prices that can only be negotiated through a cartel^W^W insurance.
      --
      Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:22PM (#99807)

        I hope your principals hold firm when you are involved in a traffic accident.

        • (Score: 2) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:22PM

          by strattitarius (3191) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:22PM (#99985) Journal
          First off, my Principal from HS probably doesn't give a shit about any of this.

          I will be charged an ungodly amount by the hospital for that pint of blood. I would have no issue with the donor getting some (most) of that money. So yes, my principals will hold firm if I should need a transfusion.
          --
          Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
      • (Score: 1) by JNCF on Tuesday September 30 2014, @03:06AM

        by JNCF (4317) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @03:06AM (#99883) Journal

        Haha, you come off as kind of an asshole but I totally get what you're saying. I feel that way about recycling. The corporations only recycle materials when they can make a profit off of it, and then they expect me to sort it all out for them? If they had to pay somebody to do the sorting it would increase the cost and less materials would be cost-effective to recycle. Fuck those guys, I'm not volunteering my labor for the benefit of a corporation.

        ...but then again, recycling and blood banks are both great things in theory...

        • (Score: 2) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:33PM

          by strattitarius (3191) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:33PM (#99986) Journal
          I am kind of an asshole... /shrugs/

          I agree about the recycling to an extent... but at least they are making efforts. There are many places that now offer "single stream" recycling. Much easier to just dump it all into one bin. I can handle separating recyclables from trash... any further work, as you stated, is on them.
          --
          Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
      • (Score: 2) by monster on Tuesday September 30 2014, @04:36PM

        by monster (1260) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @04:36PM (#100052) Journal

        I guess I'm the opposite, then.

        In my country, blood donation has no economic incentive. It just has a few associated advantages when visiting sick relatives at the hospital (more visiting hours, though it's usually not enforced and you get no privilege at all). I've been a blood donor for many years. However, I know that if they started paying for the blood, as some economists have proposed, I would stop donating. I do it as a civic duty, but given that blood has only a few days of "shelf life" before it must be disposed of, I would left it to people who needed the money. If it's just about a commercial endearvour, I value my time much more than they would pay for.

        To be fair, I have to admit that the blood bank service in my country is public and quite controlled to be kept fair, and like with transplants there's no "money buys you a better place in the queue".

        Mixing morals and money has sometimes unintended consequences.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @05:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @05:22PM (#100061)

        And I extend that to blood. Know why I haven't given blood... because I am not that stupid!

        It's against the law to pay for blood for very good reason. The first people that donate blood for money are the people desperate for money. Those are drug addicts, homeless and destitute. These are people with most diseases that they are carrying and least likely to know about them. They will also try to scam the system anyway they can. For example, if they are denied under one name, they'll make up another name. Or donate multiple times under multiple names to multiple centers.

        You have to be pretty stupid not to know this.

        • (Score: 2) by strattitarius on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:24PM

          by strattitarius (3191) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:24PM (#100093) Journal
          Please explain plasma, for which they pay pretty decent money? You must be pretty stupid to bring up that argument and leave it open to the most obvious retort. You must be the same dumb AC from the other thread.
          --
          Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
    • (Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:16PM

      by hoochiecoochieman (4158) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:16PM (#99827)

      Yeah, because what everybody needs is yet one more situation where the rich guy lives and the poor guy dies.

      Not even talking about the obscenity of lines of poor people at every hospital door, selling their organs to support their families.

      Wouldn't that be great?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:11PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:11PM (#99800)

    As a rule of thumb, it's generally best to let people opt-in to anything that could be harmful to them.

    Having your organs harvested can be harmful, if not deadly. Somebody should have to opt in before having their organs harvested.

    Having systemd installed on your Debian system is harmful. Somebody should have to opt in before having their system infected with awful software.

    • (Score: 2) by subs on Monday September 29 2014, @10:28PM

      by subs (4485) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:28PM (#99809)

      Having your organs harvested can be harmful, if not deadly.

      Nobody's talking about an opt-in/out for living people. What are they gonna do? "Draft" you to donate organs, forcibly? Obviously at the point at which your organs are "harvested", the deadly part is already behind you. :D

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:45PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:45PM (#99813)

        You didn't think this through. Those harvesting your organs are often the same people who are deciding whether you live or die, often in a situation where you're incapable of making the choice yourself.

        Let's say you get into a car accident. You've suffered mainly just head injuries, but the rest of your body is fine. You're still alive, but just barely, and you're unable to communicate. If they work hard, they could save your life. Or they could just wait a little while and let you die, and then harvest your organs.

        Now, it would be nice to think that they'd try to save your life. But here they are, confronted with the costs and benefits of trying to save you, versus the costs and benefits of harvesting your organs.

        You're just a single patient, who may not even be able to pay for the intensive care that you'll need in order to recover. Yet they can let you die with little cost to them, take your organs with little cost to them, and perform pricey (for the recipients!) transplants on several patients. If they save you, they make, say, $150,000. If they let you die and harvest your organs, they're looking at maybe $900,000 or more in income.

        Interests start to conflict in this sort of a situation, especially when money plays as much of a role as it does in modern medicine.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:56AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:56AM (#99913)

          It's worse than that. Organs need to be taken before you die, so no need to let you die. And there is no test that can determine for sure whether or not you are going to die.

          We had a case recently here in Denmark, where the a young woman had opted in, but her parents said no because that meant they wouldn't get time to say goodbye. A few hours after the doctors were to take the organs, she started waking up. She was not happy when she learned how close she had come to become a donor.

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:24PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:24PM (#99833)

        Actually, as I recall organs typically die within minutes of the body, at best. Add in the time it takes to remove them without damage and get them on ice, and if the doctor takes an extra 60 seconds trying to revive you it likely means that at least some of your organs will no longer be viable. Add in the fact that there is no bright clear line between being alive and dead - the doctor has to make a judgment call on each case individually - and you can see how being an organ donor might drastically reduce your chances of being revived in a touch-and-go situation. Does she keep trying to revive you at a 10% chance, knowing that doing so means your organs will no longer be suitable for transplant if she fails? And, oh yeah, even on ice those organs won't last long so they pretty much have to have the recipients for your organs lined up while you're still alive.

        On the other hand given the tight time constraints it's actually very rare that a person dies under circumstances where their organs can be harvested - it's generally accepted that the ideal organ donor is someone who has experienced brain death but is otherwise still alive and healthy - the organs can then be either harvested en-masse, or one by one while keeping the body alive with prosthetics as a life-support system for the remaining organs, potentially greatly extending the window in which compatible recipients can be found.

  • (Score: 2) by geb on Monday September 29 2014, @10:35PM

    by geb (529) on Monday September 29 2014, @10:35PM (#99811)

    Mandatory. No system for opting out.

    If you want to opt-out, you're going to need a dead man switch and an incendiary bomb on your person at all times.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @10:49PM (#99816)

      So you're okay with some other man getting your penis after you die?

      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 29 2014, @10:58PM

        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 29 2014, @10:58PM (#99818)
        Who would object to that? All I'd ask in exchange is to keep a score of all the new women it met!
        --
        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:01PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:01PM (#99820)

          Sorry, it's going to a gay zoophile.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 29 2014, @11:22PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 29 2014, @11:22PM (#99831)
            Meow!
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
          • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:17AM

            by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:17AM (#99846)

            A gay zoophile would bother me less than the average morbidly obese person who's going to get an organ because doctors like paychecks, and waste it.

            You can take my organs, that will mean less smoke when they cremate me. Hastag cheapongasevenwhendead

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @11:03PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 29 2014, @11:03PM (#99821)

          What if the recipient is a white police officer who had to use deadly force to defend himself from a black thug who had physically attacked him?

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 29 2014, @11:27PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 29 2014, @11:27PM (#99834)
            What organ did this obviously hypothetical officer lose?
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @12:19PM (#99961)

      Mandatory. No system for opting out.

      If you want to opt-out, you're going to need a dead man switch and an incendiary bomb on your person at all times.

      Well, I sure wouldn't want to receive your brain.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Dunbal on Monday September 29 2014, @11:45PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Monday September 29 2014, @11:45PM (#99838)

    Because my body belongs to me not the state and certainly not some committee. If you are so desperate for organ donors how about educating people about the benefits of being a donor and getting people to become organ donors (aka the hard but smart way) instead of passing some draconian law that tramples over everyone's autonomy and assumes that anyone's body is state property (aka the "he's as good as dead no one will care if we unplug him now anyway" easy but morally corrupt way).

    Making organ donation opt out is just a way of circumventing the inconvenience of having to ask the question, and shame on whoever is greedy enough to want my kidneys yet callous enough to not even ask me for them.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:26AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Tuesday September 30 2014, @01:26AM (#99857) Journal

    Meaning of Life, Live Organ Transplants. [youtube.com] Never gets old. "What's this, then?" "A liver donor's card." "Need we say more?"

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Common Joe on Tuesday September 30 2014, @05:06AM

    by Common Joe (33) <{common.joe.0101} {at} {gmail.com}> on Tuesday September 30 2014, @05:06AM (#99900) Journal

    I'm a little surprised by how many people are in favor of the opt-out system for organ donation... especially after we all get opted-in for so many things in the computer world that many of us disapprove of. The kicker of it is that organ donation should be easy to opt-in for most people in the U.S. I've lived in three states in the U.S. (Louisiana, Texas, and Indiana) and all of them had a little check box when getting or renewing the driver's license asking for organ donation. Most people in the U.S. should have a driver's license or photo ID generated by the state so organ donation should be an easy thing to do. To boot, most people carry their ID with them all the time so just by looking at the ID, medical technicians know if you're a donor or not. Perfect? No, but it's still a decent low tech system.

    To encourage people to sign up, organ donors should be given preferential treatment to receive organ transplants. A system would have be devised to prevent people from signing up last minute when they get diagnosed with a deadly disease. I don't want money exchanging hands or it will certainly be turned into people donating everything they can just to feed their family; the rich vs the poor scenario.

    Not helping is the medical and insurance communities. I've been to enough doctors to know many are incompetent. I'd hate to have them making the decision as to whether to turn me into a donor or try to save my life. I've felt on more than on occasion that they were telling me things for my money instead of my health. This AC [soylentnews.org] makes a good argument. Insurance companies? We all have horror stories about them.

    I'd like to see some clearly written rules in plain English so people can make a good decision as to whether or not to sign up. I have never seen anything that details under what conditions my organs will be used. I'm a supporter of the organ donation community, but I have no easy-to-access information to try to convince others to join.

    Sorry if my thoughts were a little disjointed as I jumped from paragraph to paragraph. I was trying to address multiple ideas without being too wordy.