The hospital doesn’t have a financial incentive for donation. They have nothing to do with the decision.
State law requires all hospitals (50 state laws) to report certain criteria to the area’s OPO (organ procurement organization).
The OPO makes the decision to donate or not after the patients doctors declare them dead.
There are triple blind protections here. The OPO is removed from the certification of death. The local doctors and hospitals are removed from the donation decision. And the receiving docs/patients don’t hear anything about a potential donor until after the decision is made and the organs are matched by the OPO, so a potential receiving doc/patient/hospital cannot influence the outcome because they don’t become part of the process until after the decision is made.
In most cases, organs are flown out of the hospital where the person died to the hospital where the next best match lives, it’s not a one-stop business.
Take this article: if the hospital had kept the dead lady on life support for the next several days, they stood to gain far more financially from several days of extremely high level care than they would by having an OPO come and prematurely end the care they are providing to someone who is dead. Following the patient’s wishes here (instead of the family) likely cost the hospital tens of thousands of dollars in extra care. The hospital, just like the family, has no say in the process.
There are safeguards that prevent the conspiracy stories presented on this website. In almost every article negative to donation that is posted here, it’s readily obvious that someone with a bias purposely misrepresents a key fact. Normally, they are grieving and looking to place blame.
That’s understandable.
It’s not a conspiracy.
Donations save lives. That’s the point.
“Donations save lives. That’s the point.”
You cannot be Pro Life if you are unwilling to donate your organs when you are dead.
So you are saying the hospital gives them away free of charge? According to the doctors I know socially organ donations and transplants are some of the most lucrative business hospitals do.
They have nothing to do with the decision.
So now you are saying doctors' decisions are completely above the financial considerations? That is absurd.
State law requires all hospitals (50 state laws) to report certain criteria to the area’s OPO (organ procurement organization).
Do these "50 state laws" all define the same criteria for organ donation? I highly doubt it.
The OPO makes the decision to donate or not after the patients doctors declare them dead.
And that is where the issue of whether the patient is really dead comes into the discussion. The "organ procurement organization" certainly has an economic incentive to override the family's decision.
There are triple blind protections here. The OPO is removed from the certification of death. The local doctors and hospitals are removed from the donation decision.
This separation of responsibility hardly matters if both of these parties benefit from these types of decisions at the exclusion of the family.
And the receiving docs/patients don’t hear anything about a potential donor until after the decision is made and the organs are matched by the OPO, so a potential receiving doc/patient/hospital cannot influence the outcome because they don’t become part of the process until after the decision is made.
This is where your argument fails. Pushing organ donation benefits all these parties in general regardless of whether they benefit from a specific case.
In most cases, organs are flown out of the hospital where the person died to the hospital where the next best match lives, it’s not a one-stop business.
Again, that is irrelevant to bias I described in my post above. These groups have a economic interest is seeing people get declared legal dead so their organs can be harvested.
Take this article: if the hospital had kept the dead lady on life support for the next several days, they stood to gain far more financially from several days of extremely high level care than they would by having an OPO come and prematurely end the care they are providing to someone who is dead.
So now you are saying the patient received better care because the hospital looked forward to a lucrative organ harvest? This argument would only make sense if the hospital didn't stand to benefit finanically from overriding the family's decision.
Following the patient’s wishes here (instead of the family) likely cost the hospital tens of thousands of dollars in extra care. The hospital, just like the family, has no say in the process.
The doctors and the hospital share an undeniable financial incentive to profit from the death of organ donors.
There are safeguards that prevent the conspiracy stories presented on this website. In almost every article negative to donation that is posted here, it’s readily obvious that someone with a bias purposely misrepresents a key fact. Normally, they are grieving and looking to place blame.
No you are blaming the victims and their families. My point remains the same. If these medical entities who profit from organ donation are going to harvest organs without the permission of families, fewer people will list themselves as organ donors. Nothing you have written here refutes that.
That’s understandable. It’s not a conspiracy. Donations save lives. That’s the point.
If that is correct, then you should be arguing on here against hospitals ending care and harvesting organs against the wishes of families. The situation in this article has done immense harm to the cause of organ donation.