From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Date: 31 Dec 1992 06:31:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal) says:

>In article <1992Dec30.184941.6791@mksol.dseg.ti.com> noonan@mksol.dseg.ti.com (Michael P Noonan) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec30.174740.18045@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, osan@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (Mr. X) writes:
>>|> In article <1992Dec29.155304.16757@ncsu.edu> hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer) writes:
>>|> >  The state of North Carolina has taken a very sensible approach 
>>|> >to this - Donor status is put on the Driver's License.  When you 
>>|> >get a license they ask you what donor status you want, and then the 
>>|> >license serves as a legal document.  (I have had a Uniform Donor
>>|> >Card in my wallet for almost 10 years, and I just checked and found
>>|> >that since my intent is on my driver's license that I no longer need
>>|> >carry the card.)
>>|> 
>>|> 	This is fine Henry, as far as it goes, but what about the question
>>|> 	of the default case when the person in question has no "findable"
>>|> 	license?  If the default is this "implied consent" crap, then we are
>>|> 	no better off.  Imagine a nice new fresh piece of meat, just about to
>>|> 	expire, the organs of which are sorely needed...  "Uh, gee... we LOOKED
>>|> 	for the  driver's license, but could not find it until several hours
>>|> 	after the kidneys (or what have you) had been harvested.  Sorry"
>>|> 
>>|> 	I can virtually guarantee you that shit like this will happen with
>>|> 	increasing frequency until it becomes standard practice (de rigeur,
>>|> 	if you will).  And the "but it saves so many lives"  BS will be
>>|> 	very liberally and vigorously offered at each and every protestation.
>>
>>How can anyone sit here and say, "I don't want so-and-so to have my
>>organs because I don't agree with his political views."  
>
>        Does it matter how if they can?
>
Yes.  It is so remarkably unlikely that you need to demonstrate how this is
possible.
>
>>I am personally
>>disgusted that someone could have the potential to be so selfish to not
>>share something of which they have no need.  
>
>        Fine, be disgusted.  Some people have that potential.
>
>>Everyone should be a donor.
>>It shouldn't even be a question.  
>
>        Everyone should.  It, however, *should* be a question, because the 
>state doesn't own your body before or after you are dead.
>
>>Why should your dead body have rights
>>over it's organs?  
>
>        Your dead body doesn't have right to the organs.  Whomever the 
>appropriate heirs have disposition rights regarding your dead body.  A 
>person's death does not make their body the property of that state or the 
>medical industry.
>
>>Should your dead body still be considered a person
>>according to the law?  What utter bullshit!
>
>        Who has suggested the body still be considered a person?  All that 
>has been suggested is that the state, the medical industry, nor any other 
>person has a right or a claim to another's organs, alive or dead.  Organs 
>which are donated are *donated*.  They are not appropriated.  Noone has any
>right to another person's organs except where the owner has granted that 
>right.
>
>>|> 	And I also wonder how many ER doctors may get into the habit of
>>|> 	becomming somewhat, shall we say "laid back" about fighting to save
>>|> 	someone's life when they know that Senator Joe Scumbag has very
>>|> 	discretely offered 1.5 million dollars for a pair of new kidneys for
>>|> 	their very sick daughter.  Can you say "pressure from your superiors"?
>>
>>Complete bullshit.  That doctor should go to jail and never get out.
>>Is this happening with organ donors now?  
>
>        It is tough to document the reasons a doctor failed to save someone'
>s life, or anything in that vein.  Even where it is suspected it is 
>virtually impossible to prove.  However, doctor's now often don't know 
>whethera person is a donor or not when they are dealing with an emergency.  
>Under a new "default" system where the persons' status is assumed to a 
>donor, there question will be the other way around.
>
But it wouldn't make any difference even if the doctor *did* know the patient
was a donor, because it is phenomenally unlikely that this person's organs will
go to a patient of that same doctor...it is almost never known prior to the
death of the patient exactly which organs will be usable or who they will
be matched to.  Thus, the doctor caring for the potential donor will have
no conflict of interest:  His patient is the potenital donor, and saving that
life is his priority...not saving the life of some patient, possibly in another
state, whom he has never and will never meet or treat.
>
>>That is a completely
>>unsubstantiated assertion.
>
>        Abuses of organ donation, harvesting, and allocation abound and have 
>been documented in a great many cases in a great many places.  They happen, 
>and they are a problem.
>
They probably do happen...but "a great many cases ina great many places"?
Sorry, I work inthis field, and you do not know what you are talking about.
They do happen, I am sure, but it is a rare occurrence, and not by any
stretch of the imagination "a problem".
>
>>|> 	I suppose this sounds a bit cynical, but nonetheless I am certain this
>>|> 	would become quite a frequent occurrance.  When it comes to lives, 
>>|> 	people will do almost anything and those of means will not hesitate
>>|> 	to push evey button they can in order to get that which they want so
>>|> 	badly. 
>>
>>Are you saying that a doctor will make no effort to save me if he knows
>>that the paramedics found my driver's license and it said I was a donor?
>
>        No, he's saying that it is possible that a doctor may make a snap 
>decision that you can't be saved and not try, prefering to go ahead and take 
>your organs for somebody who can be saved.  
>
Why?
>
>>Does this happen all the time now?  
>
>        I have no idea, but "all the time" is not the issue.  
>
Wait a sec...just a few paragraphs back you claimed that abuse of the organ
donor system was widespread...now you admit you don't know, and suddenly
it "is not an issue".
>
>>Do organ donors statistically have
>>less of a chance to survive in an ER than non-donors?  
>
>        It would only be important if *known* donors had a lower chance of 
>survival than non-donors, and then situation is one where death is an 
>immediate risk.  (Throw out all the scraped knees and such.)  Under this 
>new "default" system whether or not you are a donor, the doctor is likely to 
>assume you are a donor.
>
Why don't you answer the question?  Do known donors have a lower survival
rate than other patients?
>
>>Perhaps I will
>>listen to your ranting when you demonstrate that this is the case.
>>Hell, if this is true, I'll be screaming right along with you.
>
>        The words "ranting" and "bullshit" do not indicate much of an
>interest in reasonable dicussion of the issue.
>
>
Neither do your wild, unfounded accusations against the organ procurement
system indicate a serious interest in discussion.
> 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
>                         Information Services Group
>PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns