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: 3, Insightful) by ghost on Monday September 29 2014, @09:49PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by hoochiecoochieman on Monday September 29 2014, @11:16PM
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?