From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: interesting [and scary] blurb...
Organization: University of Tennessee Division of Continuing Education
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:02:29 GMT

In article <1hu44gINNjet@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:

>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:

>>>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.
>>
>>        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 only slightly important whether or not the doctor knows
where the organs are going.  If he decides that it is a waste of time to
try and save such and such a person and his time is better spent saving the
organs (much like doctors have to choose between a mother and a baby)
then he's only considering that the organs may do good, while his efforts
to save the person won't.

>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.  

           Operating under the assumption that everything here stays open
and above board.  With default organ donation, it becomes much harder to
investigate these matters, because once the organs are out of that body,
you are prohibited by law from checking further.
           Cute, eh?

>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...

           One would hope so.  It is not required to *know* a patient needing
the transplant to have a conflict of interest.  Having any such patient will
make them think of it, or even just knowing such patients are out there.

>>>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".

         What is "this field?"  Further, currently if my father 
dies and he doesn't have a donor card and his eyes and liver are 
taken out and spirited away, I'm likely to want to know exactly 
what's going on.  Under this new "system" I not only will never 
know, but I'll be told I have no business knowing.  The regardless 
of the current state of affairs (and it does happen, and it is a 
problem when it does) the possibility of abuse increases 
exponentially.          

>>>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?

          Why?  Because he may decide that saving you is a waste of his time 
and the hospital's money which could be better spent on somebody who can be 
saved.  Currently if you die, they get another piece of meat they have to 
dispose of.  Under a new set of rules, they'll get some organs, which can be 
implanted into someboy, possibly in their hospital, possibly not.

>>>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".

	I said abuses of the organ donor system was often abused.  That's a 
different thing that "all the time," which implies in virtually every case,
and it's not *that* much of a problem.
	And something does not need to happen "all the time" in order to be
both a concern and a problem.


	
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal               University of Tennessee Div. of Cont. Education
                         Information Services Group
PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu  (Mail to VEAL@utkvm1.utk.edu will bounce.)
Newsgroups: alt.society.civil-liberty,talk.politics.guns