How should disabilities factor into organ transplant triage decisions?

manifold

Diamond Member
Feb 19, 2008
57,723
8,638
2,030
your dreams
Unfortunate Fact: There aren't enough organs to go around to cover everyone who might need one, so clearly some needy patients simply die waiting.

How much should a patient's disabilities be factored into his/her relative ranking among all patients in the running for a particular organ?

Well, this story might interest you.

A Doctor Refuses to Okay Transplant for Child with Cognitive Disability (Updated)

Should CHOP Refuse Transplants for Mentally Retarded Kids? | Be Well Philly

Hospital denies life saving transplant to child because of special needs - Nashville Special Needs Kids | Examiner.com
 
Technically, there are enough organs, there just aren't enough people who volunteer to donate.

No, disabilities should not be a factor.

Having said that, I lean towards a system that assumes that the dead are donors and that individuals have the right to opt out, instead of an 'opt in' system or doctors having to approach grieving relatives.
 
Organ transplants ought only be given to people in perfect health.

Clearly if somebody has already not taken care of his or her organs, they don't pass muster for somebody else's.
 
Technically, there are enough organs, there just aren't enough people who volunteer to donate.

No, disabilities should not be a factor.

Having said that, I lean towards a system that assumes that the dead are donors and that individuals have the right to opt out, instead of an 'opt in' system or doctors having to approach grieving relatives.

Because I know people, in the trade, so to speak, I will never sign an organ donor card. My relatives know my preferences, if I'm beyond hope, then by all means, if my organs are worth anything, give them to someone who needs them. But all too often, they LET someone die so they can harvast the organs. You may not believe it and there's no stats to back me up, but I've talked to people who know where it's happened.
 
Organ transplants ought only be given to people in perfect health.

Clearly if somebody has already not taken care of his or her organs, they don't pass muster for somebody else's.

And clearly, if the doctors botched a triple organ job on an illegal alien girl, they shouldn't then take 3 other healthy organs and give them to that dying girl, who died anyway, while my friend was not even put on the list for a heart because she had diabetes (not her fault, btw).

I think I'll have my relatives specify that if my organs go to anyone, they go only to an American citizen or LEGAL immigrant unless of course, I'm in another country when I die, then the organs can go to that countries citizens.

Lawbreakers should never ever be rewarded.
 
Technically, there are enough organs, there just aren't enough people who volunteer to donate.

No, disabilities should not be a factor.

Having said that, I lean towards a system that assumes that the dead are donors and that individuals have the right to opt out, instead of an 'opt in' system or doctors having to approach grieving relatives.

Because I know people, in the trade, so to speak, I will never sign an organ donor card. My relatives know my preferences, if I'm beyond hope, then by all means, if my organs are worth anything, give them to someone who needs them. But all too often, they LET someone die so they can harvast the organs. You may not believe it and there's no stats to back me up, but I've talked to people who know where it's happened.

Then maybe the system of 'assumed consent' is a better one. If there is less pressure to find donors, they will be less inclined to let someone die for their organs?

I don't know enough about the topic to hold a firm view so I'm open to be convinced by any intelligent argument. On this, I'm happy to accept your word on it... not everything is verifiable and I have no reason to doubt your word. I don't always agree with you - but I have yet to see you be deliberately dishonest.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
IMO the 'assumed consent' model wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) pass constitutional muster. One's organs are every bit as much one's property as his/her estate holdings. If the government has the authority to harvest organs for the greater good, what's to stop them from seizing other property for the same purpose?
 
IMO the 'assumed consent' model wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) pass constitutional muster. One's organs are every bit as much one's property as his/her estate holdings. If the government has the authority to harvest organs for the greater good, what's to stop them from seizing other property for the same purpose?

Yea, which is why I find this topic such a difficult one.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
IMO the 'assumed consent' model wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) pass constitutional muster. One's organs are every bit as much one's property as his/her estate holdings. If the government has the authority to harvest organs for the greater good, what's to stop them from seizing other property for the same purpose?

Yea, which is why I find this topic such a difficult one.

Unless enough people were convinced that it's worth a constitutional amendment. Then it could be accomplished without concern for a slippery slope.
 
IMO the 'assumed consent' model wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) pass constitutional muster. One's organs are every bit as much one's property as his/her estate holdings. If the government has the authority to harvest organs for the greater good, what's to stop them from seizing other property for the same purpose?

Yea, which is why I find this topic such a difficult one.

Unless enough people were convinced that it's worth a constitutional amendment. Then it could be accomplished without concern for a slippery slope.

I don't know, I would equate that with the same as having to "opt out" of having your private information sold.
 
IMO the 'assumed consent' model wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) pass constitutional muster. One's organs are every bit as much one's property as his/her estate holdings. If the government has the authority to harvest organs for the greater good, what's to stop them from seizing other property for the same purpose?

Yea, which is why I find this topic such a difficult one.

Unless enough people were convinced that it's worth a constitutional amendment. Then it could be accomplished without concern for a slippery slope.

I do. Since such an amendment could place a very strict limit on it, and if it was done with reason instead of using overly emotional ranting, I'd be supportive of at least having the debate around such an amendment.
 
Yea, which is why I find this topic such a difficult one.

Unless enough people were convinced that it's worth a constitutional amendment. Then it could be accomplished without concern for a slippery slope.

I don't know, I would equate that with the same as having to "opt out" of having your private information sold.

I don't equate those at all. And to be honest, I'm struggling to imagine why you would.
 
Technically, there are enough organs, there just aren't enough people who volunteer to donate.

No, disabilities should not be a factor.

Having said that, I lean towards a system that assumes that the dead are donors and that individuals have the right to opt out, instead of an 'opt in' system or doctors having to approach grieving relatives.

Because I know people, in the trade, so to speak, I will never sign an organ donor card. My relatives know my preferences, if I'm beyond hope, then by all means, if my organs are worth anything, give them to someone who needs them. But all too often, they LET someone die so they can harvast the organs. You may not believe it and there's no stats to back me up, but I've talked to people who know where it's happened.

That is exactly what I have heard too. If you are a match, for several people, or someone deemed more worthy you are dead. Not to mention with opt out it is easy to say "Oops, we didn't find the opt out card time to to stop his heart from being ripped out."
 
Unless enough people were convinced that it's worth a constitutional amendment. Then it could be accomplished without concern for a slippery slope.

I don't know, I would equate that with the same as having to "opt out" of having your private information sold.

I don't equate those at all. And to be honest, I'm struggling to imagine why you would.

It's your body, it's your information, where's the question? Or do you think just because you're dead, you should have no say in what happens to your body? I would like to be buried, not cremated. Now do you think the governemnt should have the right to overturn my wishes? Do you think I should have to fill out a special form for that? Of course, I'm all in favor of being buried in the backyard too, but the state has overruled that. My property, my body, should be my say.
 
I don't know, I would equate that with the same as having to "opt out" of having your private information sold.

I don't equate those at all. And to be honest, I'm struggling to imagine why you would.

It's your body, it's your information, where's the question? Or do you think just because you're dead, you should have no say in what happens to your body? I would like to be buried, not cremated. Now do you think the governemnt should have the right to overturn my wishes? Do you think I should have to fill out a special form for that? Of course, I'm all in favor of being buried in the backyard too, but the state has overruled that. My property, my body, should be my say.


If you believe that I 'think' any of that then your reading comprehension needs improvement.
 
With the current shortage of organs, it makes sense to use them for people who have the potential to be productive members of society.
Yes, it's cold and uncompassionate, but it makes sense. That said, I would want to see the family of the donor have some say in who gets the organs.
 
I don't equate those at all. And to be honest, I'm struggling to imagine why you would.

It's your body, it's your information, where's the question? Or do you think just because you're dead, you should have no say in what happens to your body? I would like to be buried, not cremated. Now do you think the governemnt should have the right to overturn my wishes? Do you think I should have to fill out a special form for that? Of course, I'm all in favor of being buried in the backyard too, but the state has overruled that. My property, my body, should be my say.


If you believe that I 'think' any of that then your reading comprehension needs improvement.

If I knew what you thought, I wouldn't have asked.
 
With the current shortage of organs, it makes sense to use them for people who have the potential to be productive members of society.
Yes, it's cold and uncompassionate, but it makes sense. That said, I would want to see the family of the donor have some say in who gets the organs.

Just a question, where do you stand if the family says they want the organs to go to a white person?
 
It's your body, it's your information, where's the question? Or do you think just because you're dead, you should have no say in what happens to your body? I would like to be buried, not cremated. Now do you think the governemnt should have the right to overturn my wishes? Do you think I should have to fill out a special form for that? Of course, I'm all in favor of being buried in the backyard too, but the state has overruled that. My property, my body, should be my say.


If you believe that I 'think' any of that then your reading comprehension needs improvement.

If I knew what you thought, I wouldn't have asked.

My apologies then. I inferred your questions as more accusatory than I did inquisitory.

The answer of course is no, I don't think any of that, which is why I say it would require a constitutional amendment to be... constitutional IMO.
 
With the current shortage of organs, it makes sense to use them for people who have the potential to be productive members of society.
Yes, it's cold and uncompassionate, but it makes sense. That said, I would want to see the family of the donor have some say in who gets the organs.

When I die, they can take whatever they want and give it to whomever needs it. When they're done, what's left of 'me' will either be donated to research (I totally love the idea of rotting away at the 'body farm' or, I will be buried, without the coffin and crap, in a natural burial site. I will not clutter up some cemetery, damaging the environment and all that crap.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top