Actually, I think it’s very likely that an EMT will look for your driver’s liscense, if only to see what your medical allergies are.
Surreal:
As far as doctors not trying hard enough to save you because you are a donor…why? What makes you think that the doctor is going to consider someone on a donor list as more desirable to save than someone that may die in front of them? Don’t give me this “wounded bank-robber” crap. An ER doc may or may not know the exact circumstances of a patient that is rushed in, but they are definitely not going to know who is on a donor list unless they personally know the recipient. Even then, you are ignoring that fact that, as has been said over and over, the ER doc hasn’t got a damn thing to do where a donor organ goes.
You know about that, huh? Mind providing a cite then? And I hope your cite can show that the people these nurses “killed” weren’t “killed” when their life support was shut off by order of the family or doctor.
“A new survey of nurses in hospital intensive-care units finds that nearly one out of five has hastened the death of critically ill patients at least once in their careers, occasionally without explicit permission from patients, doctors or family members.”
The moral rule is simple and old. When a person has the opportunity to save another persons life without risk to his own life, he has a moral obligation to do so. Inaction is immoral.
This is not a “new morality”; It is an old rule applied to a new situation.
I’m really short on time…but I wonder how many of you “selfish” folk who “just can’t stand” the idea of being a donor would feel if you learned you needed a transplant?
From your own cite: “In the anonymous mail survey of 852 ICU nurses, 16 percent said they had performed euthanasia or assisted in a suicide at the request of patients or doctors, while 4 percent more said they had done so without being asked and sometimes even contrary to doctors’ orders.”
4%. Not 20%. You may or may not agree with assisted suicide and euthanasia, but you have to admit that it is a completely different circumstance, and would need it’s own thread for debate. The accuracy of this “study” could be debated as well.
Regardless of this hijack, you still haven’t tried to refute the logic that I and many other posters have asserted. Your refusal to do so while still claiming that doctors would, even subconsciously, not try as hard to save a donor looks more and more like paranoia.
Great stuff, if I could only talk my mom into it. A practical/legal question, from someone who believes very strongly in organ donation and has signed her driver’s license:
My parents are Jewish. I have discussed the organ donation issue in depth with both of them and they are well aware of my wishes.
Since I am single, I believe my parents are considered my next-of-kin for organ donation purposes. Two problems: a) they have been divorced for over 20 years and can’t have a civil conversation with each other, much less agree on anything; and b) if it came down to it, I suspect my mom (at least) might be creeped out by the whole thing and refuse to give consent to harvest my organs.
Is there any way I can override their potential rejection by authorizing someone else to act on my behalf? If so, how could I make the information available to hospital personnel quickly enough for it to be of any use?
If we are morally obligated to “donate” our organs, why is the doctor not morally obligated to “donate” his life saving services or the hospital not morally obligated to “donate” beds and operating rooms, or, for that matter, insurers not morally obligated to “donate” coverage for lifesaving medical procedures? Seems like a double standard of morality to me. Organ donors are the only ones in this situation expected to save lives out of the goodness of their hearts. As one of the uninsured working poor, I’d die tomorrow if I needed a transplant, for want of an insurance policy and/or a fat bank account. This is why I personally am not an organ donor. If this makes me immoral, I’m certainly not alone in this medical scheme of things.
I saw an episode of a newsmagazine on TV, where a woman died from her burns, because of a lack of donor skin…however, all donated skin that was harvested locally was processed to be used for penile implants.
Lovely, just lovely. If you HAVE signed your donor cards (and I do hope you have) let’s all look to see if there’s an EXCLUSION box for penile implant donations.
Take my eyes, take my heart, take my kidneys, my liver, my lungs, let someone LIVE, to see another sunset, to hold a child, to sing a song, read a book, praise God.
Don’t let me donate so some jerk can impress the ladies with the size of his flaccid manhood.
My DL says “ORGAN DONOR” in big green letters right underneath my picture.
When I got my first DL, I told my parents I would be a donor. They disagreed with my decision and said they’d never consent to it. When I went back to renew, I had it put on there again, and I told them again to show me how much they loved me by respecting my wish to help other people live from my own death. They still didn’t agree. The next time I got my DL renewed, I got it marked for organ donation again, and again I told them that if they ever respected me at all, they would respect my last wish. If anyone else can live from my death, or see because of it, or walk because of it, that’s what I want.
Then I guilt tripped them and told them ‘Mom, Dad, if I was the one terminally ill who needed a heart or a liver or a kidney to see, wouldn’t you want some other person to donate their organs so I could be around for longer?’
Then they got it.
They still disagree with my decision and have both said they would never be organ donors themselves, but they will respect my decision for the harvest of my organs.
While I don’t believe that people have a moral obligation to donate their organs, there is definitely a difference between organ donation and the other “donations” you describe. For most people, organs have no other use once you are dead. They are garbage, buried in the ground until they decay. Like the uneaten food that a restaurant donates to a soup kitchen, or the out-of-style clothing that is donated to Goodwill, if they aren’t donated, they will be wasted.
OTOH, doctor’s services, hospital beds, insurance coverage, etc., will presumably still be used if they are not donated. They will not simply be tossed aside.
Of course, if you believe that your organs are not worthless once you die (whether because you want your body to get to another world intact or for any reason) then you certainly have a valid reason for not donating.
So pohjonen, are you saying that people should be paid for their organs? Wouldn’t that just exacerbate the existing healthcare inequities, by insuring that only the highest bidders got them? Or are you saying that you will only donate organs if there is universal healthcare, and until then you’re willing to let your organs go to waste because they might go to someone with a better healthcare support system than yours?
I’ve got a big exam coming up and did not read more than the first page of replies. I was asked by e-mail for an opinion, though, so forgive me if this repeats stuff already agreed upon.
Most people who do not donate organs say they fear that these will be “harvested” before they are actually dead. I definitely do not believe that this is the case. In fact, I think the reverse is true. Organs are generally most useful after “brain death” but when there is still oxygenation (heart and lungs starting to fade). Most doctors are reluctant to diagnose brain death under these circumstances and may wait too long (not too little time) before attempting harvest.
Doctors on the whole are not nearly aggressive enough in promoting organ donation, do not resuscitate orders, durable power of attorney and living wills. These can be uncomfortable topics to bring up. Most families don’t realize, for example, that in 80 year olds in hospital with chronic disease who have a heart attack, ER notwithstanding, as few as 15% survive CPR and leave the hospital; many of these people have permanent neurological injuries. Doing “everything you can” for your relative often is not the best idea medically or ethically. Organ donation is obviously a little more personal.
I do think medical professionals, being human, routinely do not do everything they could do for every patient. Sometimes this is because it is not warranted (if the intervention generally has a poor outcome or risks outweigh benefits). Sometimes the doctor is too tired and dos not consider the intervention. Bias certainly does occur, and I’m sure this is often unintentional, and varies from doctor to doctor. I have heard anecdotal evidence from friends that uninsured patients in the US are more likely to deal with residents and less experienced providers. In general, doctors certainly aim to do everything they can for all patients, and I do believe they achieve this lofty goal most of the time.
It benefits other people who need those organs more than you do.
Honestly, what is so hard to understand? It is an altruistic act; you do it to help others, not yourself. YOU’RE DEAD, so you are not using them.
I don’t consider myself a particularly moral person; my rules for morality boil down to don’t lie and don’t hurt other people. I am certainly not looking down on anyone who believes that it’s “icky” or whatever. However, you are completely pulling illogical, unlikely, ridiculous reasons for not donating your organs out of your ass. You have the opportunity to do something huge, unbelievably unselfish, and kind beyond words for someone you have never met, and you are concerned with conspiracy theories and urban legends?
Surreal, did you happen to hear about the med students drugging innocent people and stealing their kidneys? Better sleep with a Louisville slugger by the bed; you can’t be too careful these days.
By the way, I hate to belabor a point, but you still haven’t given us a cite about doctors intentionally letting organ donors die.
Easy. A doctor is morally obligated to donate his services, a hospital its beds, and the owner of a corpse, the organs, when a life is directly at stake.
On a micro scale, the application of this is easy. A person is ill and there’s only one doctor who can save his life; The doctor will not harm anyone else by saving the life; He cannot choose not to save the life for whatever reason, including lack of funds to pay for care.
On a macro scale, the application of the simple rule becomes more difficult. There are limited resources in the world. Every doctor saving one life is not saving another. A bed used by one person, can’t be used by someone else. The obligation to pay for life saving medical care for everyone who needs it is a moral obligation of the entire community. The obligation to provide the care, reguardless of funds, falls on every doctor who could provide the care, even if only one doctor is needed.
The case of organ donation, however, is much simpler, as the potential donor is not deciding how to allocation limited resources; He is deciding whether to allocate them at all, or let them go to waiste. The moral imperitive should be obvious.
It’s NOT an either/or question, unless providers give their services for FREE which they don’t. The heirs of donors could benefit financially just as the providers do, and frankly are probably more in need of the funds. Do you not think that these medical resources are not ALREADY allocated in favor of the rich? Yes, people should be paid for providing a valuable medical commodity, just as providers are already handsomely paid. What’s a transplant cost these days? A pretty penny I would presume, and all of it goes to the providers. What’s wrong with tossing a portion of that to the heirs of the person providing an organ? And yes, there should be universal health coverage, not only for life threatening matters, but for debilitating or disfiguring ones as well.
In short, I do not feel it is morally incumbent upon me to gratuitously provide organs when my reality is, if I needed one, I would kick off due to my lack of insurance or funds with which to compensate the the transplant team.
Since when is morality dictated by whether or not it’s reciprocal? The golden rule says “Do unto others as you would like to have them do unto you,” not “Do unto others only if you know for a fact that they would do the same unto you.”
Just adding my voice to those who are donors. Once I’m dead, whatever is left is up for grabs, and my family knows this. If the parts aren’t serviceable, maybe the whole will help some future doctor. At that point, it’s not like any of it is of use to me.
I too am an organ donor. In fact, when I die, my whole body goes to science; whatever can be used for donation, take it, the rest can be used for autopsy and they can skin me and use my skeleton for future reference. My children know of this and I have a living will that states the same. I see no reason to be buried but I find it comforting to know that some parts of me will help others to live longer and, in that respect, I will live longer. I also donate blood regularly and used to donate platelets regularly but then I moved out of the area. Fact is, if I were asked to be a living donor I would but only the liver or MAYBE a kidney…the heart stays with me until the end.