SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 4, Informative) by keplr on Monday September 29 2014, @09:39PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:24AM
Portugal.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:26AM
Not that the actual country is important, anyway.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday September 30 2014, @09:38PM
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
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?
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 30 2014, @07:45AM
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
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
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
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
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.