Sebelius: I can’t suspend the lung-transplant rules for a dying 10-year-old

[Coyote]

Well, there might be a away.

Paris Jackson just tried to kill herself. She is a healthy 15 year old. If we had a mechanism for all potential suicides to go to the suicide center where they will be humanely put down and their organs harvested Jackson would be benefitting who knows how many young people right now.

There was recently some kind of sad story about the number of Veterans who commit suicide every day. Identify them, remove them and put them down too. Victims of bullying who are driven to suicide could easily be identified from social media. They don't like being bullied, harvest them.

We might well have an untapped market where the families could financially benefit from a death that would ordinarily just be an expense.

Next step....Soylent Green..........

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, the main proponent of creating a commercial market for healthy human body parts has utterly failed to come up with a plan. I'm just trying to help.

 

[Oddball]

Well, the main proponent of creating a commercial market for healthy human body parts has utterly failed to come up with a plan. I'm just trying to help.

The plan is to allow those who own the organs to sell them, and/or will that power to their heirs....Y'know, self-ownership.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

 

[Oddball]

Well, there might be a away.

Paris Jackson just tried to kill herself. She is a healthy 15 year old. If we had a mechanism for all potential suicides to go to the suicide center where they will be humanely put down and their organs harvested Jackson would be benefitting who knows how many young people right now.

There was recently some kind of sad story about the number of Veterans who commit suicide every day. Identify them, remove them and put them down too. Victims of bullying who are driven to suicide could easily be identified from social media. They don't like being bullied, harvest them.

We might well have an untapped market where the families could financially benefit from a death that would ordinarily just be an expense.

Next step....Soylent Green..........

Look, up un the sky....

It's a bird...

It's a plane...

No, it's....

 

[Coyote]

Well, there might be a away.

Paris Jackson just tried to kill herself. She is a healthy 15 year old. If we had a mechanism for all potential suicides to go to the suicide center where they will be humanely put down and their organs harvested Jackson would be benefitting who knows how many young people right now.

There was recently some kind of sad story about the number of Veterans who commit suicide every day. Identify them, remove them and put them down too. Victims of bullying who are driven to suicide could easily be identified from social media. They don't like being bullied, harvest them.

We might well have an untapped market where the families could financially benefit from a death that would ordinarily just be an expense.

Next step....Soylent Green..........

Look, up un the sky....

It's a bird...

It's a plane...

No, it's....

Calm down Oddball, I was just joking around

 

[Katzndogz]

Well, the main proponent of creating a commercial market for healthy human body parts has utterly failed to come up with a plan. I'm just trying to help.

The plan is to allow those who own the organs to sell them, and/or will that power to their heirs....Y'know, self-ownership.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's not difficult to understand how it won't work. That's easy.

Suppose there was a market by which you could benefit financially from any organ you have two of. You could sell a lung or a kidney, or even part of your liver and still survive. There is just not a high degree of success in donations from living donors. And, if your one remaining organ fails, you are just smack on the transplant list. It is harder to transplant an organ from a living donor than from a cadaver donor. And, of course hearts would never be the subject of living donor transplantation.

You think it will work simply because you don't know enough about transplantation. You make up all kinds of solutions because you imagine they will work. They just won't. One of the main issues that you have is that you think that if families were persuaded to sell the organs of dead loved ones there would be more available. There might be, but VERY FEW. Most healthy people don't die. Unhealthy people die. That's what limits the number of organs for transplant. Very old people don't even have organs suitable for transplant. It has to be a relatively young person, who died in a state of health, through some sort of accident.

The way to really increase the availability of organs for transplant would be to stop pursuing expensive failures like embryonic stem cell research and put it into the successful adult stem cell research. Some organs have already been grown from the skin cells of the receipient AND there are no issues with rejection and no need to take life long anti rejection medication. Instead we continue to finance a complete failure because there is some tangenital connection to abortion.


Bioengineers find innovative ways to grow new cartilage from patient's own stem cells

Transplants: Patients could one day 'grow' new organs from their own stem cells to replace failing body parts | Mail Online

 

[Oddball]

Well, the main proponent of creating a commercial market for healthy human body parts has utterly failed to come up with a plan. I'm just trying to help.

The plan is to allow those who own the organs to sell them, and/or will that power to their heirs....Y'know, self-ownership.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's not difficult to understand how it won't work. That's easy.

Suppose there was a market by which you could benefit financially from any organ you have two of. You could sell a lung or a kidney, or even part of your liver and still survive. There is just not a high degree of success in donations from living donors. And, if your one remaining organ fails, you are just smack on the transplant list. It is harder to transplant an organ from a living donor than from a cadaver donor. And, of course hearts would never be the subject of living donor transplantation.

You think it will work simply because you don't know enough about transplantation. You make up all kinds of solutions because you imagine they will work. They just won't. One of the main issues that you have is that you think that if families were persuaded to sell the organs of dead loved ones there would be more available. There might be, but VERY FEW. Most healthy people don't die. Unhealthy people die. That's what limits the number of organs for transplant. Very old people don't even have organs suitable for transplant. It has to be a relatively young person, who died in a state of health, through some sort of accident.

The way to really increase the availability of organs for transplant would be to stop pursuing expensive failures like embryonic stem cell research and put it into the successful adult stem cell research. Some organs have already been grown from the skin cells of the receipient AND there are no issues with rejection and no need to take life long anti rejection medication. Instead we continue to finance a complete failure because there is some tangenital connection to abortion.


Bioengineers find innovative ways to grow new cartilage from patient's own stem cells

Transplants: Patients could one day 'grow' new organs from their own stem cells to replace failing body parts | Mail Online

There are lots of ways that things won't work if all you do is go looking for them.

Fact remains, despite it's downsides, the best, most efficient way to bring the most things to the most possible people is the free market and the self-ownership that comes with being a free individual.

OTOH, there's no surer route to high costs, low quality and scarcity of product than central control and monopoly.

That's not merely my opinion, that's true demonstrable historical fact.

Moreover, people don't only die of old age with decrepit organs...You're building something into your model of reality that simply isn't true.



Stem cell research is another topic entirely.

 

[Katzndogz]

The plan is to allow those who own the organs to sell them, and/or will that power to their heirs....Y'know, self-ownership.

What's so difficult to understand about that?

It's not difficult to understand how it won't work. That's easy.

Suppose there was a market by which you could benefit financially from any organ you have two of. You could sell a lung or a kidney, or even part of your liver and still survive. There is just not a high degree of success in donations from living donors. And, if your one remaining organ fails, you are just smack on the transplant list. It is harder to transplant an organ from a living donor than from a cadaver donor. And, of course hearts would never be the subject of living donor transplantation.

You think it will work simply because you don't know enough about transplantation. You make up all kinds of solutions because you imagine they will work. They just won't. One of the main issues that you have is that you think that if families were persuaded to sell the organs of dead loved ones there would be more available. There might be, but VERY FEW. Most healthy people don't die. Unhealthy people die. That's what limits the number of organs for transplant. Very old people don't even have organs suitable for transplant. It has to be a relatively young person, who died in a state of health, through some sort of accident.

The way to really increase the availability of organs for transplant would be to stop pursuing expensive failures like embryonic stem cell research and put it into the successful adult stem cell research. Some organs have already been grown from the skin cells of the receipient AND there are no issues with rejection and no need to take life long anti rejection medication. Instead we continue to finance a complete failure because there is some tangenital connection to abortion.


Bioengineers find innovative ways to grow new cartilage from patient's own stem cells

Transplants: Patients could one day 'grow' new organs from their own stem cells to replace failing body parts | Mail Online

There are lots of ways that things won't work if all you do is go looking for them.

Fact remains, despite it's downsides, the best, most efficient way to bring the most things to the most possible people is the free market and the self-ownership that comes with being a free individual.

OTOH, there's no surer route to high costs, low quality and scarcity of product than central control and monopoly.

That's not merely my opinion, that's true demonstrable historical fact.

Moreover, people don't only die of old age with decrepit organs...You're building something into your model of reality that simply isn't true.



Stem cell research is another topic entirely.

Most people die who are SICK. There is only one way to increase the available pool of healthy organs and that is to kill them before they get sick. They die of cancer, diabetes, AIDS, dozens of diseases that make organs unusable. Or, they die carrying disease. They have hepatitis, fat covered organs, Crohns, Addisons, any number of diseases.

If you had a mechanism where someone could sell their organs now, for harvesting when they did, no one would buy those organs because the risk is greater that they will die of a disease or illness than from an accident while they are healthy.

I already went through transplant education. I recommend it for everyone.

 

[Oddball]

It's not difficult to understand how it won't work. That's easy.

Suppose there was a market by which you could benefit financially from any organ you have two of. You could sell a lung or a kidney, or even part of your liver and still survive. There is just not a high degree of success in donations from living donors. And, if your one remaining organ fails, you are just smack on the transplant list. It is harder to transplant an organ from a living donor than from a cadaver donor. And, of course hearts would never be the subject of living donor transplantation.

You think it will work simply because you don't know enough about transplantation. You make up all kinds of solutions because you imagine they will work. They just won't. One of the main issues that you have is that you think that if families were persuaded to sell the organs of dead loved ones there would be more available. There might be, but VERY FEW. Most healthy people don't die. Unhealthy people die. That's what limits the number of organs for transplant. Very old people don't even have organs suitable for transplant. It has to be a relatively young person, who died in a state of health, through some sort of accident.

The way to really increase the availability of organs for transplant would be to stop pursuing expensive failures like embryonic stem cell research and put it into the successful adult stem cell research. Some organs have already been grown from the skin cells of the receipient AND there are no issues with rejection and no need to take life long anti rejection medication. Instead we continue to finance a complete failure because there is some tangenital connection to abortion.


Bioengineers find innovative ways to grow new cartilage from patient's own stem cells

Transplants: Patients could one day 'grow' new organs from their own stem cells to replace failing body parts | Mail Online

There are lots of ways that things won't work if all you do is go looking for them.

Fact remains, despite it's downsides, the best, most efficient way to bring the most things to the most possible people is the free market and the self-ownership that comes with being a free individual.

OTOH, there's no surer route to high costs, low quality and scarcity of product than central control and monopoly.

That's not merely my opinion, that's true demonstrable historical fact.

Moreover, people don't only die of old age with decrepit organs...You're building something into your model of reality that simply isn't true.



Stem cell research is another topic entirely.

Most people die who are SICK. There is only one way to increase the available pool of healthy organs and that is to kill them before they get sick. They die of cancer, diabetes, AIDS, dozens of diseases that make organs unusable. Or, they die carrying disease. They have hepatitis, fat covered organs, Crohns, Addisons, any number of diseases.

If you had a mechanism where someone could sell their organs now, for harvesting when they did, no one would buy those organs because the risk is greater that they will die of a disease or illness than from an accident while they are healthy.

I already went through transplant education. I recommend it for everyone.

People who die of medical afflictions have perfectly good and transplantable organs that are unaffected by the afflictions....Then there are the organs that would be made available, which are not otherwise presently available, from trauma victims.

I strongly suspect your "transplant education" was heavily influenced by the current monopoly charged with obtaining and distributing organs...WTF do you think they're going to tell you?

 

[Katzndogz]

There are lots of ways that things won't work if all you do is go looking for them.

Fact remains, despite it's downsides, the best, most efficient way to bring the most things to the most possible people is the free market and the self-ownership that comes with being a free individual.

OTOH, there's no surer route to high costs, low quality and scarcity of product than central control and monopoly.

That's not merely my opinion, that's true demonstrable historical fact.

Moreover, people don't only die of old age with decrepit organs...You're building something into your model of reality that simply isn't true.



Stem cell research is another topic entirely.

Most people die who are SICK. There is only one way to increase the available pool of healthy organs and that is to kill them before they get sick. They die of cancer, diabetes, AIDS, dozens of diseases that make organs unusable. Or, they die carrying disease. They have hepatitis, fat covered organs, Crohns, Addisons, any number of diseases.

If you had a mechanism where someone could sell their organs now, for harvesting when they did, no one would buy those organs because the risk is greater that they will die of a disease or illness than from an accident while they are healthy.

I already went through transplant education. I recommend it for everyone.

People who die of medical afflictions have perfectly good and transplantable organs that are unaffected by the afflictions....Then there are the organs that would be made available, which are not otherwise presently available, from trauma victims.

I strongly suspect your "transplant education" was heavily influenced by the current monopoly charged with obtaining and distributing organs...WTF do you think they're going to tell you?

You've pulled yours entirely out of your ass.

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, whatever you need to tell yourself to rationalize the waste of millions of perfectly good human organs.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

because of their scarcity organ transplants have always had strict rules and guidelines.

this girls story is tragic, but i don't know how you can link those rules, which exist outside of 'obamacare' to the president or death panels or sebelius or whatever you'd like to use the family and the girl to attack.

further, let's say she gets her lung. i'm going to safely assume she's not the only one waiting for one... where does that leave everyone else on the list? should someone else on the list that meets the criteria go without because some pundits have decided to use that particular girl as a political football? do the punditry then become death panels themselves?

This is exactly what Obamacare will be like times 10,000 because anyone under age 14 is not going to get same lifesaving care as 14 to age 45 - check out complete lives systems - it's all there.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've got an idea - let's make it a barter system. You won't be allowed to BUY an organ, but you can TRADE an organ that you already have. Say you need a liver. Some guy who needs two new eyes just had his wife die, so now he owns her liver by inheritance. He can trade the liver for your two eyes. You lose your sight but get to live and its a fair trade because the two of you agree on it.

Sound good?

 

[boedicca]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

Really? Then leftwing boycotts of companies are rather pointless.

In reality, private companies do pay attention to their shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, partners, and community. If they don't, they are far less successful than then would otherwise be.

 

[eflatminor]

The system is designed to provide the maximum benefit to the most people.

That's true. Of course, the fact it fails miserably to meet demand is something we should just overlook?

Yea, pass.

It fails to meet demand because there is a limited supply of dead people with organs to donate you idiot my lord you are stupid.

Which would not be the case with a profit motive. You were saying something about stupid???

 

[eflatminor]

As it is, with all the laws and limitations in place, there is still a black market for human organs.

Which would all but go away with a legitimate market, just as the black market for booze did following the repeal of alcohol prohibition.

Even with the legal sale of booze or firearms, there is still a substantial black market - particularly firearms. So why do you think it would be any different with organs?

Oh good God, you couldn't be that thick. There IS a black market for organs now, which would be less so with a legitimate market. Think of it this way: Do you think the black market for firearms would increase or decrease if we outlawed the sale of firearms?

Duh.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[dblack]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

Surprisingly, you're raising an interesting point here. This is one of the key distinctions between the authoritarian and libertarian mindset. In one regard, we all want the same thing: more control over our lives. But which approach gives us that? Answering that question is where it gets subjective.

There's no question you get more control through coercion than through voluntary cooperation. So whoever controls government, has more control via authoritarian rule. And ideally, in a democracy, government is under control of the majority. That's all fine and dandy as long as you're confidently in line with majority opinion. What about when you're not?

If you don't control the government, if your opinions and values aren't part of the majority consensus, authoritarian government gives you much less control than voluntary cooperation. It can even represent a threat. In a free market, you might not like the way a given company does business, but you're not required to do business with them. You generally don't have that option with government. It's the only game in town.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jeri, you can't change free market company decisions. We can influence government to make good decisions.

Really? Then leftwing boycotts of companies are rather pointless.

In reality, private companies do pay attention to their shareholders, customers, employees, vendors, partners, and community. If they don't, they are far less successful than then would otherwise be.

I am taking about health companies. It is almost impossible to change them. Shareholders and dividends are far more important than patients.

The answer to dblack's very reasoned essay above is: get involved in government, in which we are the shareholders.

 

[Coyote]

Which would all but go away with a legitimate market, just as the black market for booze did following the repeal of alcohol prohibition.

Even with the legal sale of booze or firearms, there is still a substantial black market - particularly firearms. So why do you think it would be any different with organs?

Oh good God, you couldn't be that thick. There IS a black market for organs now, which would be less so with a legitimate market. Think of it this way: Do you think the black market for firearms would increase or decrease if we outlawed the sale of firearms?

Duh.

Thanks for proving my point.

No one is denying there is a black market for organs now, but it's very small because the process getting, preserving and matching organs is complicated and, as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, most deaths result in organs that aren't useful for transplants. Where a black market is most likely to happen is with something like kidneys where a living donar can donate. For other organs - death is required, and not just any death - healthy death. This is where organs really differ from any other product - someone has to die. Legalizing it could increase demand and increase the potential for abuse.

Making it legal to sell won't prevent the abuses nor will it ensure that those most in need get it. There will still be a black market for those who can't afford it and it will thrive.