I’m an organ donor, but I don’t want my organs to go to a prison inmate. Thinking about it, I’d like to leave some guidelines as to how I’d want my life-preserving organs to be used - preferably to a parent of young children. I’d much rather a 35 year old with 2 toddlers get them than someone without kids, or even someone with teenagers. I damn sure don’t want a prison inmate to get them - frankly I’d rather be buried with my organs rather than a prisoner get them.
Can I make such restrictions/requests ahead of time in a legally binding fashion? Is it state-to-state? In the absense of such instructions, could my next of kin make such restrictions after the harvest?
A organ given is a gift. TBS, why would you want to attach any stings to a gift of life. That prisoner may be that poor feller/gal that was wrongfully accused:dubious:.
and that isn’t the only issue.
I am a Christian. Love the sinner, hate the sin. for who among us is free of sin?
And, by giving a gift like that could turn a hardened person into a very humble and thankful person:cool:.
I’ve been googling, but this is tough to find info on.
My guess is that if there’s not a law about it (and I can’t find one), you can specify (in a cadaveric donation) any restriction you like, if you create a living will. If something’s not illegal, by default it’s legal.
But a boilerplate ‘living will’ would never have recipient restrictions. And I doubt the recipient restriction would be enforceable.
I know (from Mary Roach’s book Stiff) that if you will your body to science (admittedly a different thing), you have no say what science does with it. If I recall correctly, that’s true of every program you can will your body to (for scientific research, not for harvesting organs for recipients).
Anyone here remember when Archie Bunker got a blood transfusion from a black person? The Black nurse assured him he would be alright…but he might start getting strong cravings for watermelon!
Two laws govern the donation of organs in the United States. At the federal lever, there is the National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 (and amended in 2008), which sets up the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network (OPTN). The OPTN is charged with “establish[ing] membership criteria and medical criteria for allocating organs and provid[ing] to members of the public an opportunity to comment with respect to such criteria.” 42 U.S.C. § 274(b)(2)(B). It is administered by the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS). UNOS does so under a federal contract and has been the sole administrator for its entire existence, so the two organization are de facto equivalents, although that need not always be the case.
At the state level, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL, pronounced /nə.ˈkjuːz.əl/), which is an NGO made of up of delegates appointed by state officials to come up with proposed uniform legislation that the states are then asked to enact, has promulgated the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA). As of 2007, 20 states have adopted the UAGA. In particular, § 11 of the UAGA specifies who may receive anatomical gifts. A donor’s choices are limited to hospitals, medical schools, organ procurement organizations (a term defined under National Organ Transplant Act), eye and tissue bank, and named individual recipients. If, in the case of a named individual recipient, if transplantation to that person cannot take place, under UAGA § 11(g) the organ passes to an organ procurement agency for allocation (according to the criteria set by OPTN/UNOS). A donor may avoid this result only by expressly prohibiting the gift so to pass. If this is done, the gift passes to the person responsible for disposing the body/organ/tissue (UAGA § 11(i)).
So, to recap: A donor is limited in the ability to specify recipients. Typically, it will be medical researchers or an organ transplant organization. Those groups have their own recipient eligibility criteria and waiting lists that are sanctioned by federal law. If the donor identifies an individual, that instruction will be honored if the intended recipient can accept the transplant at the time the organ becomes available. If not, and in the absence of an express prohibition, the organ will pass to an organ transplant organization and subject to its criteria and waiting lists. If that is forbidden by the donor, the lapsed gift of the organ will be destroyed as medical waste (or the body will be buried/cremated).
Since the OP was constructed the way it was(with all kinds of background info), I think this one will play out better in another forum. I’m moving it to Great Debates, where you can still receive factual answers and information, opinions, and more.
Why wouldn’t you? If not for the being dead bit, wouldn’t you be a bit peeved to discover your “gift of life” was given to someone who used it to prey on innocent people?
My husband was an organ and tissue donor, and it never occurred to me to wonder about or restrict who would benefit. Those tissues weren’t going to do the urn any good.
While I can understand preferring someone decent benefit from the sort of limited giving organs and tissues represent, it feels small. You get to make joy out of sorrow, give sight to the blind, heal the halt and the lame (or how ever that verse goes). Death is a big fat nothing and by donating you get to create something, for someone, out of that nothing. That’s pretty special. Nothing takes away from that.
It’s not a yes or no question. I would not give a kidney to Charles Manson unless it was wrapped inside an M-80 and shoved up his ass. Leave me out of the murderers, rapists, and child molesters. I’d rather fertilize a flower.
I don’t want to give organs to someone who might become partly socialist as a result of having parts from a “liberal”. Particularly if they are rich. I don’t want any money for me or mine, but I want any rich recipients who aren’t socialists and against socialized health anything to not get one of my prime kidneys or my almost unused liver (fois gras sized!) if it means compromising their life long principles.
Shouldn’t people against socialized medicine absolutely refuse the gift of an organ donation. The law requires that organ donations be socialized. Wouldn’t those against socialized medicine be willing to lay down their lives for the future of their country to keep this great nation free from the scourge of socialized medicine.
Sigh. I was hoping this wouldn’t wind up here. Next time I’ll craft my OP more carefully.
But since we’re here - as I understand it, right now organs are given away based on length of time on the list, immediate need, and probability of survival. There’s no mechanism to give it to more “deserving” candidates from a social standpoint, and there shouldn’t be, at least not at that level. But at the level of the donor, I think adding some kind of guidelines would be a good thing. I think you’d get more organ donors too, if you let donors have some say in who gets their organs.
I put strings on all my charitable donations - by giving them to organizations that use the money for causes I care about or think are important. And I happen to think the life of a parent of toddlers is more important than the life of a convicted felon.
Or it just could keep him alive long enough to get released, and commit more crimes, while using my kidney. I happen to think my scenario is more likely than yours.
Nice equivalence you’re making there. So in your minds, blacks = convicted felons. Got it.
Well, no. If there was such a mechanism, I’d use it. But apparently there isn’t, so I’ll just leave it up to the odds that it won’t go to a convict. And it’s not like there’s a glut of usable organs out there, and it would come down to a convict gets it or it gets thrown out.
Kimmy_Gibbler, thank you for giving an actual GQ answer.
Well, at least by donating to anybody, if that’s your only choice, you move the “deserving” person up one on the Wait List by giving it to the horrible person.
Now that it’s great debates, I’ll ask straight out - if you’re ever on a waiting list, do you want the right to refuse who you’ll accept an organ from?
