Posted on 05/12/2010 4:55:37 AM PDT by markomalley
ABSTRACT
There are not enough solid organs available to meet the needs of patients with organ failure. Thousands of patients every year die on the waiting lists for transplantation. Yet there is one currently available, underutilized, potential source of organs. Many patients die in intensive care following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment whose organs could be used to save the lives of others. At present the majority of these organs go to waste.
In this paper we consider and evaluate a range of ways to improve the number and quality of organs available from this group of patients. Changes to consent arrangements (for example conscription of organs after death) or changes to organ donation practice could dramatically increase the numbers of organs available, though they would conflict with currently accepted norms governing transplantation.
We argue that one alternative, Organ Donation Euthanasia, would be a rational improvement over current practice regarding withdrawal of life support. It would give individuals the greatest chance of being able to help others with their organs after death. It would increase patient autonomy. It would reduce the chance of suffering during the dying process. We argue that patients should be given the choice of whether and how they would like to donate their organs in the event of withdrawal of life support in intensive care.
Continuing current transplantation practice comes at the cost of death and prolonged organ failure. We should seriously consider all of the alternatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at 3.interscience.wiley.com ...
Twisted Truths has its roots.
I hope the author has people who plan to Pray for Mercy on his soul when he dies.
And add some dignity and compassion ethics into the Practice of Medicine for patients.
The Godless have made it common practice to ignore the rite of birth so shall they attempt to do the same with death.
Gee, that didn’t take long... Obamacare passed in, what, March? And already we’re talking about snuffin’ Grandma and stealing her kindneys.
The decision to withdraw care will no longer be voluntary under Obamacare. So the government will get to decide who dies and who gets the organs.
In five years time, our politicians will no longer be visiting our veterans hospitals to cheer up the patients, but will instead visit to window-shop...
Good Morning, Miss Jones!
You have visitors today!
So roll over, please...
Check out those kidneys!
Didn’t I say they were fresh?
You should see her heart!
I can let you have
The whole package for Ten Grand...
Not a penny less!
So, thank you Miss Jones!
We’re gonna let you rest now...
Try to stay healthy!
How nice would it be for a grieving widowed wife to be able to sell her dead husband's body parts for the benefit of his family? Who owns me anyway?
If it’s your body and the gubmint has no right to tell you what you can do, where are the so called “feminists” arguing for your right to sell an organ?
But the Pravda Media says Sarah Palin was "out of line" to mention Obama's death panels...
Eventually, don't they ALL go to waste?
Fine. Here's an alternative. What say we start with YOUR organs and why wait until you're in some degraded condition where you can't appreciate where and to whom your organs went.
It's called meth.
I don't think people making meth in their bathtub became millionaires overnight, or over...well ever.
http://www.digital-immersion.net/meth/user.htm
It has always been only a short hop from shredding babies for convenience to hacking up our elders and injured for spare parts.
The next step isn't so far, either, when people really get hungry. Why do you think there is an almost constant cannibalistic meme in horror/sci-fi movies any more? (watch the fringe, it's where desensitization starts).
They'll say "Can't let all that meat go to waste after they gutted the old geezer."
If they’re so eager to see people die, they’re hypocrites for acting like it’s about saving lives.
We’ve become a nation so spoiled and pampered that we seem to think that we’re owed a long, happy, trouble free life and that if the normal course of events occurs that interferes with that before we’re ready, people get into such a snit.
People die. It happens to everyone sometime.
Nobody is going to live forever anyway, so this abomination of killing others to harvest their organs is inexcusable.
There is simply no justification for it. That means some people are going to die before they’re ready to, whether it’s the person who needs the transplant who can’t get it, or the person who is being killed for the harvest.
This life is not all there is but that’s what people have come to believe as we’ve gotten away from faith in God.
Whatever happened to “keep your laws off my body”?
Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Cass Sunstein, has advocated that laws be changed so that deceased patients’ organs may be harvested for transplant without prior consent from the patient or family.
Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler outlined the policy in their 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Many organs that could be used in transplants are lost because patients fail to give their consent before dying, Sunstein and Thaler note, and family members often refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
This “explicit consent” should be turned into a “presumed consent,” write Sunstein and Thaler, where laws would assume that, unless people explicitly choose not to, they want to donate their organs to science for transplant or other medical uses.
How can we even discuss organized organ donation on such a wide scale when the government has trouble paying for care after car crashes and influenza pandemics?
Go watch the original “Max Headroom” movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.