# Should "dead donor" rules for organ donation be revised? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 5, 2016, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975 "2016-03-05T02:43:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/41 "2016-03-11T20:06:35Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But one of your central points about organ donations is that it is exactly that: a donation, a form of charity. > > This isn’t the case with firemen and police and soldiers. They are paid professionals, and the money that pays their wages and sustains their services is contributed by taxpayers. And yet, they _choose_ to do it. There are other career opportunities available to them. They’re not pressured into taking that job because they’re told that if they don’t, the government will let their houses burn down or their families be murdered by terrorists and street gangs. I have no objection to people _choosing_ to risk their lives for the sake of others. I object to the notion that I, or anyone else, am _obligated_ to lay down my life for the sake of another. > [@](#): > > Presumably, you don’t believe that the fire and police and military services are essentially corrupt organizations that take cavalier risks with other people’s lives for the sake of making money. But you do believe that about the medical profession and organ donation. Correct. The purpose of government is to serve the people. The purpose of corporations is to make money, either by taking it directly from the people or by monetizing the people and selling them off to other corporations. > [@](#): > > Why are you angry enough about that system that you are not willing to contribute your own organs, but not quite so angry that you’re happy for other people to take those same risks on your behalf? I would be a fool to choose to reject a charitable offer if doing so meant I would die. > [@](#): > > You said a few posts back that you “don’t believe that anyone is inherently more deserving of life than any other person.” But you apparently do believe that, because you want people to take risks for you that you’re not willing to take for them. If other people _want_ to risk their lives for my sake, then I’m not going to refuse that offer. I do not, however, insist that they’re _obligated_ to do so. Is it your belief that the police should prioritize protecting the lives of a cop’s family over the lives of a civilian’s family? If two adjacent houses are on fire, should the firemen let one burn down with women and children inside because their neighbor was a fireman and they weren’t? > [@](#): > > It’s also worth nothing that some of your concerns about the financial corruption in the medical profession would actually be addressed and significantly alleviated if organ donation were much more widespread. If there is any incentive for the medical profession to be too aggressive in harvesting organs, it is partly because so many people die without making their organs available. Increase the number of donors, and the potential for shortage-induced problems declines. Dedicate our nation’s scientific apparati to making organ cloning safe, reliable, and available to all within the next five years, and the potential for shortage-induced problems _ends_. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/42 "2016-03-11T20:23:31Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I have no objection to people _choosing_ to risk their lives for the sake of others. I object to the notion that I, or anyone else, am _obligated_ to\*\* lay down my life for the sake of another.\*\* Your whole argument about organ donation, and your whole argument against a system such as i’ve been advocating, is based on a false premise. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/43 "2016-03-11T20:40:19Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Your whole argument about organ donation, and your whole argument against a system such as i’ve been advocating, is based on a false premise. The system you advocate permits for a living person to be killed for the sake of harvesting their organs. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/44 "2016-03-11T20:49:37Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > The system you advocate permits for a living person to be killed for the sake of harvesting their organs. No, it does not. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/45 "2016-03-11T21:00:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, it does not. Then why does it occur that “dead” people who have been scheduled to be harvested for their organs have proceeded to [wake up during the procedure](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/patient-wakes-doctors-remove-organs/story?id=19609438) and continue to live thereafter? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/46 "2016-03-11T21:17:27Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Then why does it occur that “dead” people who have been scheduled to be harvested for their organs have proceeded to [wake up during the procedure](http://abcnews.go.com/Health/patient-wakes-doctors-remove-organs/story?id=19609438) and continue to live thereafter? That was an error. No one was deliberated killed just to harvest their organs. Sure, sometimes people are thought dead that are not. Extremely rare. But I’d rather wake up on a operating table, surrounded by doctors- that wake up in a crematorium or buried alive. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/47 "2016-03-11T21:24:30Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That was an error. No one was deliberated killed just to harvest their organs. “That was just an error” is considered an impermissible excuse by those who seek to abolish the death penalty on the basis that someone might be wrongly executed. Why is it permissible that some people might be wrongly vivisected? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/48 "2016-03-11T21:44:26Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > “That was just an error” is considered an impermissible excuse by those who seek to abolish the death penalty on the basis that someone might be wrongly executed. > > Why is it permissible that some people might be wrongly vivisected? They’d be dead anyway, you know. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/49 "2016-03-11T22:25:46Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That was an error. No one was deliberated killed just to harvest their organs. This is false. Lots of people are [deliberately killed to harvest their organs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade#Illegal_organ_trade). It’s not legal, and it doesn’t happen in hospitals, but it happens. This is why legalizing the organ trade is of paramount importance. A price floor of zero creates huge shortages, people dying on organ waiting lists, and a brutal black market that encourages murder. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/50 "2016-03-11T23:19:31Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > This is false. Lots of people are [deliberately killed to harvest their organs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_trade#Illegal_organ_trade). It’s not legal, and it doesn’t happen in hospitals, but it happens… But then, it doesnt matter if they are Donors or not. :rolleyes: \*Nothing to do \*with what we are talking about. No American Doctor kills a patient just 'cause the patient has a donor card. ---
**Author:** ![Chetumal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@Chetumal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chetumal)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/51 "2016-03-11T23:36:18Z")
> [@truthseeker3](#): > > I’ll keep my eyes /ducks and runs ---
**Author:** ![MissTake](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misstake/32/3189_2.png) [@MissTake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MissTake)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/52 "2016-03-12T13:30:49Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, here’s something i didn’t know. > > You’re saying that it costs money to have your name on different lists? And the cost is not some minor administrative fee like $50, but is high enough that some like you, who needs an organ, actually has to forego being on some lists because you can’t afford it? > > That is possibly the most fucked-up thing i’ve read in this thread. No, what I’m saying is most insurance will not cover transplant testing or surgery out of network. If I wanted to register in Mesa, AZ, all the costs would be out of pocket, along with the cost of transportation to/from there. There is no cost to be on UNOS. I know people who were told if they could afford to be cross listed, do it as their chances of obtaining an organ in their area was close to nil. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [March 12, 2016, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/53 "2016-03-12T16:44:04Z")
> [@MissTake](#): > > No, what I’m saying is most insurance will not cover transplant testing or surgery out of network. If I wanted to register in Mesa, AZ, all the costs would be out of pocket, along with the cost of transportation to/from there. > > There is no cost to be on UNOS. > > I know people who were told if they could afford to be cross listed, do it as their chances of obtaining an organ in their area was close to nil. To be honest, that’s almost as bad as my initial incorrect interpretation, and it’s Exhibit #23,849 in the case for universal health care. I understand that the system works best if there are regions for UNOS, and that it would probably be impossible to consider the whole national pool of recipients for every single organ. Organ transplant is a time-sensitive thing, and time spent looking for a recipient and then flying the organ across the country could, in many cases, possibly lead to the organ going to waste and no-one getting help. I also understand that insurance companies don’t want to fly people all over the country for transplants, as that would get expensive very quickly, although the cost of a plane ticket is probably trivial compared to the cost of the operation itself. But i think that, if a patient is willing to take care of her own transportation issues, health insurers should be required to cover the testing and surgery, no matter where it happens. If there’s an organ in Boise, and you’re the next best recipient, then if you’re willing to get yourself to Boise for the operation, it should be covered by your insurance. For something as important as a transplant, that should be mandatory. Basically all insurance policies cover out-of-network emergencies (if you’re hit by a car and taken to the nearest ER, for example); well, an organ transplant is, in some cases, no less an emergency situation than a car crash. ---
**Author:** ![truthseeker3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e68b1a/32.png) [@truthseeker3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/truthseeker3)\ **Post date:** [March 16, 2016, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975/54 "2016-03-16T06:45:56Z")
> [@RivkahChaya](#): > > [QUOTE=truthseeker3] > Um… redefine harm?? Sure. At one time, it would have been unthinkable to amputate a healthy limb, but now, people with certain kinds of injuries or neurological disorders have had healthy limbs they can’t control well amputated in favor of prostheses that will work better. It’s a very narrow constrict, but it happens. And women with the BRAC genes have has as yet still healthy breasts prophylactically removed. That would have been unthinkable as recently as the 1970 (or maybe even the 1980s). 100 years ago, reconstructive surgery was brand new. Elective surgery was a redefinition of harm. Removing a healthy kidney from you certainly harms you, but if it’s to save someone else, and you have consented, it is something that is done fairly frequently. Bone marrow transplants are painful for the donor, and have a non-zero risk, but they are done. Sometimes people with terrible infections are given antibiotics that will harm them, but it is judged to be a lesser harm. So, actually, doctors do harm all the time. Blood draws are painful, and have a non-zero risk, but are balanced by a benefit. That’s the trick in redefining harm-- asking what good balances it out, and does the good outweigh the harm. You could probably write a graduate thesis on the redefinition of harm over the centuries. [/QUOTE] OK, you make a good point, and I hope to address it without getting bogged down in semantics. I think it’s entirely appropriate to continually re-evaluate circumstances. If new diseases are discovered, it’s appropriate to look at all available options. If new treatments are discovered, it’s appropriate to incorporate them into patient care. If a patient’s condition changes, it’s appropriate to ask whether treatment is becoming overzealous. And if the imminent-death standard is handled very, **very** carefully such that it’s about _how_ to pull the plug - **NOT WHEN!!** - then I think it could provide some comfort to dying people and their families. But I also see a serious potential for abuse if it’s _not_ handled carefully. There’s always a temptation to abandon the afflicted and rationalize it with fancy rhetoric. Consider this exercise in devil’s advocacy: I seem to recall reading an article (in Newsweek, I think - but it’s been a while) wherein the author went back over all the paperwork after her husband died of some kind of cancer and found that he had received $6xx,xxx.xx of medical care in the year and a half between the time of his diagnosis and his eventual death. (She gave the exact figure, down to the penny; but like I said, it’s been a while.) If that’s somewhat typical and costs are assumed to be linear, then getting terminally ill people to die just one week earlier (1.28% of 52+26) would be a significant savings. And if we spent that money on people who are actually going to get better (or education or birth control or handguns or whatever your personal vision of utopia requires), then everyone\* would be better off. - well, almost everyone PS. [QUOTE=Chetumal] [QUOTE=truthseeker3] I’ll keep my eyes [/QUOTE] /ducks and runs [/QUOTE] Alright, I guess you can have them - but you have to wait until I’m actually dead. No fair chloroforming me just because I have cancer or whatever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-dead-donor-rules-for-organ-donation-be-revised/747975.md?page=2)