Does a person have a right to sell their own organs? And I'm not talking about something you could play a Bach fugue on. I'm most interested in reasoning based on rights and values.
Should people be allowed to sell their own vital organs (heart, liver, etc.)?
Should people be allowed to sell their own non-vital organs (one kidney, eye(s), etc.)?
Should organ donors be allowed to specify a person or group of people who may receive their organs? or a person or group of people who may not receive their organs?
Could a government morally force someone to give up a non-vital organ to someone else?
Could a government morally force someone to give up a vital organ to someone else?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Of course a government can't morally FORCE anyone to give up an organ, especially not a vital one. The government isn't God, it doesn't choose who lives and who dies, at least, not that directly.
I almost want to say yes, that people should be allowed to sell their organs. But I know that it would cause more harm than good. The organ market would become a black mark. The poor would be literally selling themselves to feed their families, and though this already happens in some parts of the world, people would be jumped and find their liver missing in the morning.
Creating a legal trade market for organs in the United States would be a horrible idea.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
*images of Kingsmeat*
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
King of Meat? hmm...
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
We had this discussion in business ethics last week.
I kind of think they should. I mean really, there's already a black market for organs. Making it legal would probably reduce that market. On top of that, it would make more organs available, which would be a big plus.
-pH
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Lyrhawn-
I did specify "their own" vital organs. I was envisioning something like a contract being drawn up, and both parties using a licensed surgeon. I'm not advocating it, I'm just interested in people's opinions and especially their reasoning.
pH, what about specifying classes of people who couldn't receive their organs (i.e. no black people, no gay people, not my Uncle Murray)? Does the right to sell imply the right to discriminate?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *images of Kingsmeat*
*images of Primal Curve*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ph and Senoj -
You're talking about a best case scenario. Documents can be easily forged, and while there is a black market for organs, it isn't readily accessible INSIDE the United States. People generally have the leave the country for sort of illegal surgery like that. Once the culture of organ trading is established inside the US, the guidelines, such as it being their own organs versus someone else's will become muddled.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm in Ethics Bowl, which is like debate for philosophy nerds, and this topic comes up a lot in our cases.
From an economic standpoint, allowing the selling of organs will increase the number of organs on the market, perhaps by a dramatic amount. People who wouldn't have been willing to donate a kidney out of the kindness of their heart might be willing to if they get twenty or thirty grand out of it.
From an ethical standpoint, the situation gets a bit murkier. There's been a recent trend of rich people traveling to China to get organs - since about 1/3 of all laws in China have capital punishment as the penalty for breaking them, China has a LOT of extra organs. They execute people with a shot to the head, actually, in order to have viable organs, and, of course, they'll take the organs from dead prisoners without consent.
A number of European countries practice a form of routine salvaging - basically, upon death your organs will be salvaged and donated, unless you opt out. I think this policy is a pretty good one - it increases the number of organs available, while allowing those who disagree with organ donation for religious or other reasons to keep their organs.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
Big BIG can of worms open here. BIG.
quote:Should people be allowed to sell their own vital organs (heart, liver, etc.)?
Sell, no. Give, yes.
quote:Should people be allowed to sell their own non-vital organs (one kidney, eye(s), etc.)?
See above.
quote:Should organ donors be allowed to specify a person or group of people who may receive their organs? or a person or group of people who may not receive their organs?
No. While, it might be nice to say no Aggies or no Republicans or something, I still think it would be wrong. The most deserving people should be the ones with the most need, not the group of people you like better.
quote: Could a government morally force someone to give up a non-vital organ to someone else?
Not while you are alive obviously. I do think that the government should have the right to donate organs of deceased prisoners if they are viable. I feel that criminals lose the right to choose when they break the law. I know I will get slammed for that view but there it is.
quote: Could a government morally force someone to give up a vital organ to someone else?
See above.
I am a big proponent of organ donation. I know how it can save lives. But I still believe it has to be a voluntary thing. No one should force citizens of our country to give up organs if they do not wish to (except in the case above since they are no longer productive citizens). There are certainly religious reasons why one would not want his or her body mutilated and scavenged after death but my view is that God will restore my body as He sees fit when the time comes. In the meantime, if I can save a few lives or make a few lives easier and more productive, I will.
Here is another question that was posed to me in the discussion of organ donation once years ago. If a paramedic or doctor sees that you are an organ donor, will they still try as hard to save you, knowing how much people need your organs?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr, wouldn't taking someone elses organs be stealing? Heck, it could be argued it's kidnapping (How large a chunk of someone do you have to take before it's kidnapping?)
And if they die, of course, it's murder.
So you're arguing we shouldn't make an activity illegal because it MIGHT lead to another activity that is, should be and will remain illegal.
Sorta like saying "if we allow cars someone might use it to run someone over."
The idea of someone selling their organs is repugnant to me. But then, I'm not on the waiting list to receive any sort of organ. I think if I was the idea of shelling out 100K for a kidney wouldn't seem so bad. And someone $100,000 richer but with only 1 kidney wouldn't seem as sad.
And all sorts of things that I find disgusting are legal and should remain so.
Ultimately, you can't protect people from their bad choices or they're not really free.
Pix
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's a valid argument Pixie.
However, changing our system perhaps to something closer to Europe's, where everyone is a donor unless they opt out, would create a larger influx of new donor organs, and wouldn't create the horrible side effects.
But this isn't just self destructive choices, it's choices that can harm a great many people. Smoking kills the smoker, so long as they don't do it around me, I won't rail against smoking, but when they DO do it around me, I have a big problem with it.
I'm arguing that we shouldn't legalize an already illegal activity because there is a VERY STRONG LIKELIHOOD that it will precipitate a swell in other illegal activities.
Maybe, MAYBE, I'd be willing to make an exception for kidneys, but I doubt it. Once the door is open there's no closing it again, and no way of stopping it from being opened further and further.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Way back in the day I had this discussion in an economics class.
The professor started out by saying we do not own our bodies. We talked about how ownership is:
quote:1: Possession with the right to transfer possession to others 2: the act of having and controlling property.
Since it is illegal to sell our organs, our bodies (prostitution), or commit suicide, there is a case to be made that the government owns us.
That bothers me. Because I believe people should be autonomous and my political convictions lean towards "social libertarian / fiscal conservative," I think all of the above should be legal.
However, if a market is created for organs, then I could see an increase in organ harvesting of unwilling participants. That is a big enough threat in my mind to make me reconsider whether selling organs should be legal. I have not reached a firm conclusion.
The black market may go down, but the legitimate market may have organs funneled into it through dubious means. I think the poor and illegal aliens would be at greatest risk.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wasn't there a X-Files about this?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Pixie (and pH)-
Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved? Right now the U.S. system (as I understand it) values fair distribution over pretty much everything else. Should "fairness" play a role in organ donation <edit> and hypothetical sales </edit>?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since it is illegal to sell our organs, our bodies (prostitution), or commit suicide, there is a case to be made that the government owns us.
This doesn't follow from the definition above. The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others. Therefore, it does no own us.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I don't like "Opt Out" situations as a rule. You get too many situations of "I never agreed to that!" (of course, in this case it's hard to object when you're dead.)
I wish everyone would just be a donor anyway. I'm a donor. I've told my hubby that if I'm killed to make sure they deal me out like a deck of cards.
But I think they need to make a conscious choice to become one rather than have the state make that choice for them. Even if the state backs off the second you clear your throat to object.
And I do understand your argument. It would be horrible to wake up missing an eye. It would be worse to wake up dead with all my insides missing. But I just don't think that would happen enough to overcome the good that would come out of more people donating/selling. I don't think it would happen enough to take the choice away from people. And I think, when it did happen, justice would prevail more often than not.
Pix
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: [QUOTE]The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others.
<warning, I'm about to make a glib comment on a subject I know very little about; it's not meant particularly seriously, and hope it isn't taken as such> Unless, of course, you're a suspected terrorist being given over to foreign powers for interrogation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved?
This should be asked as two questions:
1.) Is it fair if a rich person's ability to buy an organ reduces the ability of a poorer person to buy an organ?
2.) Is it fair if a rich person has the ability to avail himself of an opportunity to acquire an organ which would not exist if organs could not be sold?
If more people will donate organs under an organ-sale plan, then question 2 comes into play. And it could be rephrased as "Is it fair that the rich person not be allowed to avail themself of an opportunity that would not be available to anyone if organs could not be sold."
I have no answer to either question, but I think framing the questions in this way (and probably other ways) is necessary to full explore the ethical implications.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
PeterJones: So instead of saving more rich people we should let them die at the same rate as the poor?
I kind of assumed Insurance would cover it. (which of course, will boost the cost of insurance for all... *sigh*)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: It would be worse to wake up dead
HaHa! <edit> "Life in a box is better than no life at all" </edit>
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: PeterJones: So instead of saving more rich people we should let them die at the same rate as the poor?
I kind of assumed Insurance would cover it. (which of course, will boost the cost of insurance for all... *sigh*)
Isn't saying insurance will cover it saying exactly that rich will continue to die at the same rate as the poor (just a decreased one)?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Pixie (and pH)-
Is it fair that, because you are richer than me, you have a better shot at having your life saved? Right now the U.S. system (as I understand it) values fair distribution over pretty much everything else. Should "fairness" play a role in organ donation <edit> and hypothetical sales </edit>?
The system isn't "fair" now. Pretty much, there's a committee that decides who gets what, and since everyone on the committee has their own criteria, there's no way to predict how such things will be decided.
-pH
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
That's my point, Peter. A decreased rate. If it's for the rich, fine. If it's for all, even better. But a decreased rate of death is good right? Especially with an increase in freedom.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually, were organs to become commercially available, they wouldn't just be for the rich. Supply and demand. There are likely to be far more willing sellers than buyers.
Someone might say they'll sell their kidney for 60K, and for awhile all the rich folk will buy kidneys for 60K, until they don't need them, and no one can sell them for that anymore, then the price drops dramatically until the average joe can afford a kidney.
As a side though, has any one thought about how this will effect donating organs? Why would anyone donate their organs when they die, when their family can instead sell those organs and turn a tidy profit? It'd be like everyone has built in life insurance.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Just wait until they start a futures and options market.
Gut reaction is that I'm against it, but I need to think it through.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya, that crossed my mind, Lyrhawn. As did the prospect of Patricide for Profit. *shudder* (That's something that should warrent the death penalty.)
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
While on the topic of donating organs...
I had my license renewed a little while ago, and for the first time I said I was a organ donor. I told my husband and he started talking about how only the rich would get the organs, and the poor never would.
His reasoning is that if you need an organ transplant, the hospital isn't going to do it for free. You have to have insurance or the money to pay for the operation. So the poor can't afford it.
I never thought of it like that before. Is it true? I know that the ER only has to try to keep you alive if you can't pay, they don't have to actually give you long term treatment for whatever illness you have. So doesn't it follow that if you need a transplant, good luck getting one..
Kat, would it keep you from donating if you knew your parts would go to a rich person?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
In this case, I'm thinking yes. Because the opposite of that is, if I donate, my parts will NOT go to the uninsured.
I'm thinking of adding some sort of revision to my license. I'll donate if the organs go to an uninsured person.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
So, because you wouldn't be able to help the person you most want to help, you won't help anyone at all (at least not that way)?
People with insurance still need the organs.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
So better that NO one gets to live than a Rich person get to live. I see. (Rich being defined as someone with health insurance, of course.)
(Angry Comment Deleted)
[ January 27, 2006, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wait, what do you define as rich Katarain?
I have health insurance that I still get (until I'm 23) from my mom's work, which would entitle me to a transplant. But otherwise, our household consists of two live at home college students and one working mother making less than 35K a year. I don't classify that as rich, at least not in American economics.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No. I wouldn't think to limit it that way, thank you. You're being nasty to me, but they're my organs and I can do with them what I like. My problem is NOT that an insured or rich person might get my organs. My problem is that an uninsured person who needs my organs MORE than that insured/rich person wouldn't get them because they don't have money. If the system were fair, then all I care about is that the people who need them most get them. Without regard to money or status.
The article does make me feel a little better, as there are organizations that do allow uninsured people on the organ donation lists, but not nearly enough. I think it's clear that the problem is a greater one than just an organ donation problem--it's a problem with the health care system in general. I don't know how to fix it, but I'm not so sure that I want to participate in such a flawed and unbalanced system.
I have insurance. It shames me that should I need an organ transplant, I may very well get one from an uninsured person who would not have been allowed to receive an organ at all if they needed one.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Pix and Ophelia-
I was going to make the same point, although much less forcefully. Maybe you're really angry, but your posts seem to be overly aggressive and accusatory. Not that I'm trying to be Papa Janitor, but I just don't want the thread to devolve into a shouting match about hurt feelings.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Lyrhawn, it would be more accurate for me to have classified that group from the beginning as insured and/or rich.
I'm insured, but no where near rich. I spent a few years uninsured, though.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You're right, Peter. I deleted my angry comment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is interesting that we are generally horrified that rich people would have more access to organs than poor people. Rich people have more access to everything than poor people. How is being able to buy a life saving liver different than buying other life saving medical care and drugs? Rich people have more access to those? I'm not saying that there isn't a difference, I'm just not sure where it lies.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Honestly, I can understand your getting angry. As I tried to explain, what I really want is for the system to change. I don't like the value of someone's life being determined by how much money or insurance they have. To me, this is enough for me to want to take a stand and refuse to participate, in the, perhaps misguided, hope that my refusal will make a difference in spurring enough people to action to change the system. I understand that for you, saving lives in the meantime is enough of a motivation to work through the flawed system, even if that means that the truly needy are overlooked. That is a good position to take, and sometimes I want to take it as well.
But I, too, am angry. I'm angry that more people don't care that the uninsured can be donators but not receivers. I don't think it's right to just shrug that off.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You're right, Peter. I deleted my angry comment.
Thanks, Pix.
And, while my name is Peter, it's somewhat jarring to see it here. Most people shorten my screenname to Senoj (although you're welcome to continue calling me Peter, if you want).
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I like to think, that in an "Organ Economy" that those who sell would sell to the insured, and the donated organs would go to the uninsured. (You know, assuming tissue matches and the like.)
Like the way currently insured people pay extra in hospitals so they (hospitals) can treat the poor and support the lawsuit industry.
Pix
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't like the value of someone's life being determined by how much money or insurance they have.
But can you see how you claiming you'd only donate to the uninsured looks exactly like that to others? You valuing someone's life more specifically because they don't have much money or insurance? I completely understand you're desire to make the system more fair, but your method appears to directly conflict with that goal. Much like affirmative action is a racist policy that tries to end racial discrimination.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
There was nothing angry or uncivil in my previous post, and I will delete nothing in it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Perhaps I misrepresented you, Ophelia. If so I'm sorry.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm valuing someone's life because their life hasn't been valued by the system. They have been overlooked and uncared for because of their lack of money or insurance. So no, I don't agree that that's what I'm doing.
In all reality, if I had a revision that said I'd only donate to the uninsured, they simply wouldn't take my organs. As far as I know, they don't take conditions like that into consideration from the donor, so I would be disqualified. So I know it wouldn't work.
But that's not the point.
If I donate, I want my organs to go to the most medically needy. Not the most medically needy who was privileged enough to go on the list. I want ALL of the people needing transplants to be on that list. No matter if they can pay or not. So saying that I won't donate to such a system is valid. Let them make a new list with everyone who needs an organ on it. Then I don't care if Bill Gates himself gets my organs. At least then it would value human life equally.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: This doesn't follow from the definition above. The government hasn't maintained the right to transfer possession to others. Therefore, it does no own us.
Good point. I wish I would have thought of that in the class. But the first part of my contention is still valid. I do not own my body. There are certain things I am not allowed to do to my body. I lean towards letting people have the finale say in what they do to their body--if it doesn't hurt another individual.
The same could be said of most things. *off to ponder some more*
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
Apology accepted.
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
Perhaps we should be trying to increase the availability of insurance, as opposed to decreasing the availability of organs.
I don't know how to make that happen, but a decrease in organ donors is not a part of the solution.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: a decrease in organ donors is not a part of the solution.
Sometimes letting a system crash is the only way to rebuild/fix it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Pix -
Sure, they'd be willing to sell to the uninsured, but could the uninsured afford it? And more so, could they afford the surgery that goes with it?
Something else that has to be considered is malpractice suits. How many hundreds of suits do you think will come from angry organ buyers when their bodies reject their organs or they fail somehow? Doctors will inevitably bear the brunt of the the backlash, not the sellers. Doctors might refuse to perform transplants, or only do so with extremely worded medical liability waivers, ones that some might not want to sign. This endangers the entire system of organ donation and transplant currently at work in the country.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Pix -
Sure, they'd be willing to sell to the uninsured, but could the uninsured afford it? And more so, could they afford the surgery that goes with it?
Something else that has to be considered is malpractice suits. How many hundreds of suits do you think will come from angry organ buyers when their bodies reject their organs or they fail somehow? Doctors will inevitably bear the brunt of the the backlash, not the sellers. Doctors might refuse to perform transplants, or only do so with extremely worded medical liability waivers, ones that some might not want to sign. This endangers the entire system of organ donation and transplant currently at work in the country.
If organ sale was legal, the technology involved in transplants would improve, and more doctors would specialize in transplants. Also, one could offer a warranty with the sale of the organ so that it would be replaced if the body rejected it.
-pH
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ophelia: Perhaps we should be trying to increase the availability of insurance, as opposed to decreasing the availability of organs.
I don't know how to make that happen, but a decrease in organ donors is not a part of the solution.
That sounds like a good solution to me. I could get behind that plan.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
pH -
What do you have to back that up with? Doctors have been doing transplants for decades, and a fairly high volume of them around the world. I don't see an influx of organs for sale really improving the technology (it's more procedural than it is technological) behind it.
Warranties? Who is going to insure the warranty? Heck, back that up, who will OFFER the warranty? The seller? That's impossible, unless you're talking about a corporation with a giant list of sellers matching them up to a giant list of buyers, and if one happens to fail, then that corporation will insure it and buy a replacement from another seller.
No corporation would sign on to that, it's a crapshoot on whether or not they'd end up buying more organs than they sell.
Furthermore, it devolves into Organ Ebay.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There would be organ brokers who would be capable of backing up the warranties. Who insures the warranty when you buy a big screen tv from Best Buy?
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Either Best Buy, if you purchase the warranty separately, or the manufacturer.
But in both cases, Best Buy and the manufacturer know what it is they are selling and can decide whether or not it is cost effective to offer a warranty on the item. Why do you think Toyota offers a TEN year warranty and Ford only offers a three year warranty? They know their product. An organ broker has no idea if the organs they are selling will actually work out or not, making a warranty a gamble.
The only thing I could see working is that an organ broker would have to be one stop shopping. They'd have to have on staff doctors to perform the surgeries, evaluate the seller and the buyer, be totally liable for the whole thing to absolve the doctor himself from any lawsuit, and then perform the surgery. It would be incredibly expensive, and very risky.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You couldn't have a warrenty and ideally you couldn't sue except in extreme circumstances.
Everyone knows that transplants are risky. What you're getting is a chance, not a garauntee.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here's a side question:
Does a person have a right to abuse their body (let's say, jam a knife randomly into their leg)?
Does society have an obligation to help someone who has chosen to jam a knife into their leg?
Does it have less of an obligation if the person chooses to do something than if it occurs by accident?
(This is related to the warranty question; if someone knows the risks and chooses to go through with them, is society obligated to catch them if it turns out they made a bad decision?)
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Mandy asked this and no one answered, and I'd really like an answer as well.
When I told my mom I was an organ donor she got upset, because she said that if I was ever in an emergency situation no one would try as hard to save me, since they would know that if I died they'd get my organs. Is that true?
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
to answer the unrelated question.... Yes, yes, no. Doctors attempt to revive suicide patients all the time.
I am insured but I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. I worked hard to get the job I have which offers the insurance. I know many rich people who work hard for what they have as well and are just as "deserving" as anyone else, insured or not, rich or not, nice or not. I agree that anyone who needs an organ should be on the organ list. I thought that was the case. I am dismayed to hear it is not, but that is not going to make me take my name off the list to be a donor. Just because the list leaves people off doesn't mean I should let people die. Many people on the list die before they can ever receive the organ they need. Taking away my donation will only hurt those on the list. It won't change a faulty system.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I have to hope that doctors would still try just as hard to save me. But then I think if I were a doctor and drunk guy came in after causing a car wreck that killed a family or something, I would seriously have the urge to let him die rather than save him. Maybe that is why I am not a doctor.
It happens on ER.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
blacwolve, no it is not true. I did a chaplaincy internship at a major hosptial, where the chaplain on call was part of the trauma team. And was part of the team that talked to families about organ donation. The medical people working to save folks coming into the ER didn't know whether or not they were organ donors. And even if they found out -- what would be their incentive? The ER doctors want their department to look good, and to be the best it can be, which means a higher percentage of patients saved. Not a higher number of organ donors.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by blacwolve: Mandy asked this and no one answered, and I'd really like an answer as well.
When I told my mom I was an organ donor she got upset, because she said that if I was ever in an emergency situation no one would try as hard to save me, since they would know that if I died they'd get my organs. Is that true?
If you ask my father and a few of my professors, yes. Which is one of the reasons I am not an organ donor.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Either Best Buy, if you purchase the warranty separately, or the manufacturer.
Precisely. So it would be possible to purchase a warranty on organs from the organ broker who sold them to you.
-pH
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:When I told my mom I was an organ donor she got upset, because she said that if I was ever in an emergency situation no one would try as hard to save me, since they would know that if I died they'd get my organs. Is that true?
Absolutely.
Theft of organs would potentially be a huge problem initially if organs become sellable. Can you imagine people murdering other people to take their organs? Mmmm...organ farming. The crime would inevitably drop again as supply overshot demand, I suppose. And the whole problem could be avoided if we improve DNA fingerprinting to the point of cost-effectiveness - at the cost of the privacy of our genetic material.
Also, the rich can already buy organs - a few million donated to the right people, and watch how far up the recipient list you move. Everything's for sale in America.
With all that said, I absolutely believe we should have the right to sell our organs. There need not be anything "fair" about it.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
You have the moral right to self-determination, and therefore the right to sell your organs to anyone you wish. I would love to sell half my liver so I could get drunker cheaper on better booze, but there is not enough money in the world to make me prolong the life of a policeman or politician. As far as rich versus poor, f*ck the poor. I am poor myself, I still have to pay for other, lazier jerk-offs, and I have no desire to let them live longer than they already do on my hard-earned cash. It is not as if I would be giving away my organs for free to anyone but close friends. Maybe organ donation is not a risk in the ER, maybe it is, but the way I see things it cannot help and might hurt.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
*wanders in*
I am absolutely appalled that some of you think that doctors wouldn't fight as hard for an organ donor. What, you think they fight harder for random persons they never met rather than the person lying right there in front of them? Hogwash.
And dkw is right, none of the doctors know who is an organ donor and who is not. Usually that discussion takes place when things are already going down the tubes, and it isn't usually the doctor who brings it up. Support staff or special teams of people are the ones that do that. Unless the patient's family brings it up to the doctor, in hopes that the organs will be useful if things keep going downhill. And I've had several patient families bring it up. And surgeons and ERs like to keep their survival rates up, most definitely. Those numbers get looked at.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*applauds*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*throws flowers*
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I am absolutely appalled that some of you think that doctors wouldn't fight as hard for an organ donor. What, you think they fight harder for random persons they never met rather than the person lying right there in front of them? Hogwash.
I think you're under the mistaken impression that all doctors are moral and/or are in medicine to help people, when in reality many doctors are in medicine purely for the money, status and/or power, all of which are motives highly succeptible to external influence.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did you read the rest of what she said? An what dkw said?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Did you read the rest of what she said? An what dkw said?
What do you think?
I have anecdotal evidence that what she said in the remainder of her post is not always true. Would you like to start an anecdotal argument? Well, my uncle's a trauma surgeon and he is routinely exposed to that information. Oh yeah? Well, my grandfather's the chief of medicine at Brand X Hospital in Nowhere, California and he says it's against policy! And yada yada yada...
But by all means, continue rolling your eyes. I'll roll mine right back.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But even if they are in it for the money/status, the doctor in the ER isn't the transplant surgeon. Even if s/he does have a patient who is waiting for a transplant, what are the chances that someone they are treating will match their particular patient? Organs go to the person on the list who needs it the most and is the best match, right? So why would the doctor treating a patient care more about getting an organ for someone else's patient than keeping their own survival statistics up. Even if you go based purely on self-interest on the doctor's part, that doesn't make sense.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
ElJay, it doesn't matter who does the transplant if the doctor doing the operating is the one receiving the money/incentives for neglecting a patient with a high-demand organ.
Given the sheer number of patients treated by an ER surgeon, will one or two deaths dramatically affect their standing in the hospital?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Who exactly is an ER doctor going to get money FROM? And it isn't ever going to give him any power or any status to have patients die, whether they go to transplant or not.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm very unclear on that as well. Your original post said "Absolutely" to if someone was currently likely to receive sub-par treatment if they were an organ donar. Do you think there is currently an incentive program in place for doctors who's patients die and donate their organs?
Edit: 'cause the quote made me see my typo. :blush:
[ January 27, 2006, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
Let's say you're a well-connected, multi-millionaire whose child is going to need a heart transplant - and soon.
Let's arbitrarily say he's #125 on the list for a heart matched to his.
The multi-millionaire loves her son. She's willing to pay 10 million dollars if it means her son will live.
Enter well-connected person in the medical field. Well-connected person says sure, we can move your son up that list...for 15 million. Multi-millionaire mother says okay.
Well-connected medical man takes 14 of that 15 million and bribes the right people. Now corrupt doctors all over the nation are aware that if they happen to have someone in their hands who is about to die, there might be a nice chunk of change in it for them to simply look the other way.
As far as power goes - I'm not talking about power in the form of social standing. I'm talking about doctors with a God complex: the pathological hack'n'slash jockies who love that they routinely hold people's lives in their hands. That kind of power.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow. So, who do you think killed Kennedy?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I'm very unclear on that as well. Your original post said "Absolutely" to if someone was currently likely to receive sub-par treatment if they were an oprgan donar. Do you think there is currently an incentive program in place for doctors who's patients die and donate their organs?
I didn't mean to imply that every patient - or even the majority of patients - are at risk of being mistreated by their doctors if they're organ donors, but I absolutely believe that there ARE patients who are under-treated because they're organ donors.
And yes, I believe there is an incentive system in place.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Wow. So, who do you think killed Kennedy?
Cute. If you stopped and thought about it for more than 5 seconds, you'd realize that far more complex systems are in place for all sorts of organizations and networks. Go google "child pornography" and read some exposes on how incredibly complex their networks are, for starters.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Don't bother, erosomniac. Everyone knows that all doctors are saints. And they're not power-hungry or greedy at all.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are you saying that doctors would be willing to neglect their duty of care for an organ donor, but not willing to take the organ without a signed donor card?
I mean, with that much cash involved, surely it's not too difficult to bribe the pathologist doing the autopsy not to report the missing organ.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:So are you saying that doctors would be willing to neglect their duty of care for an organ donor, but not willing to take the organ without a signed donor card?
I mean, with that much cash involved, surely it's not too difficult to bribe the pathologist doing the autopsy not to report the missing organ.
Certainly a possibility, although I think the potential for getting caught increases as you leave behind that kind of evidence.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I did think about it. For more than five seconds, even. And I know there are corrupt people in the world, and I wouldn't even argue with you that maybe some people get themselves or their loved ones moved up on the donor list through bribes or well-placed donations.
But I think the number of multi-millionaires in the country is pretty small, and the number of them with a kid who needs a heart transplant is even smaller. Statistically, I don't think there are enough of them around for there to be a wide network of corrupt doctors just waiting to get the word from some shadowy source to know what kind of person with what kind of available organ to watch for. Plus, it's not like there is one doctor working all alone. In a hospital, there are going to be nurses around, who are going to expect the doctor to be working to save the patient's life, and kinda curious if full measures aren't taken.
I also believe that the vast majority of doctors at least got into the field because they wanted to help people. Our shadowy network has to recruit it's doctors somehow, you know? I think the chances of them approaching the wrong person sometime and that person being absolutely appalled and saying something to a member of the press, or even a family member or friend who says something to a member of the press, is pretty damn likely.
Yes, I'm a bit of an idealist, but that is tempered with a strong streak of realist. And you just seem to be incredibly cynical. I'm frankly glad I live in my world, not yours.
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
I suppose it COULD happen to someone, somewhere in America. But real life is complicated. So many doctors, so many medical people are involved in a transplant, it would be so difficult to get this done. Not to mention the risk. And has anyone been caught doing this yet? (Eljay said this much better!)
Yes, ph, you should definetely not let anyone have chance to live thanks to the use of your organs on the off chance that you'll meet up with a Godlike doctor who happens to be murderer. I hope you feel safer this way.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But I think the number of multi-millionaires in the country is pretty small, and the number of them with a kid who needs a heart transplant is even smaller. Statistically, I don't think there are enough of them around for there to be a wide network of corrupt doctors just waiting to get the word from some shadowy source to know what kind of person with what kind of available organ to watch for. Plus, it's not like there is one doctor working all alone. In a hospital, there are going to be nurses around, who are going to expect the doctor to be working to save the patient's life, and kinda curious if full measures aren't taken.
Personally, I encounter the same hypothetical questions, but I have the same hypothetical questions about all kinds of major crime networks: child pornographers, drug traffickers, importers of illegal products, recruiters for the KKK, international spy & espionage networks, etc. How do ANY of them establish the kinds of contacts they do without running into someone who will blow the whistle?
Who knows - but they do, somehow. Sometimes they get caught. Sometimes corrupt doctors do, too.
quote:Yes, I'm a bit of an idealist, but that is tempered with a strong streak of realist. And you just seem to be incredibly cynical. I'm frankly glad I live in my world, not yours.
Fair enough. I'm glad I live in mine, and I don't think yours actually exists.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Certainly a possibility, although I think the potential for getting caught increases as you leave behind that kind of evidence.
The involvement of one additional person will change how often this is attempted? Especially given what Theaca said but is really self-evident:
quote:I suppose it COULD happen to someone, somewhere in America. But real life is complicated. So many doctors, so many medical people are involved in a transplant, it would be so difficult to get this done. Not to mention the risk. And has anyone been caught doing this yet? (Eljay said this much better!)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's okay. I don't think yours exists, either. Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The involvement of one additional person will change how often this is attempted?
I wasn't talking about the risk inherent in adding another person to a network that would already have to contain many people. I was talking about the implicit physical evidence left behind when removing organs from a person who is not designated as an organ donor: the scars, the empty spaces where there should be organs - or the falsified paperwork showing the person IS an organ donor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Compared to the falsified papers needed to move someone up on the list, the possible record left in the charts of the person denied proper care?
You're stating that it's more likely that a doctor would kill someone than take an organ from a dead person. I find that pretty unlikely either would happen, but I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that the former is more likely than the latter.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Compared to the falsified papers needed to move someone up on the list, the possible record left in the charts of the person denied proper care?
The falsified papers would need to exist whether the victims were organ donors or not.
And yes, I think the record is less dangerous than falsifying papers. In one instance you have the possibility of information being left off of a chart - that's assuming, of course, that the doctor was actually modifying a documented course of treatment in order to kill the patient, as opposed to simply not trying during an operation or purposely mishandling a drug.
quote:You're stating that it's more likely that a doctor would kill someone than take an organ from a dead person.
No, I'm saying it's more likely that a doctor would kill someone and take their organs with permission than kill someone and take their organs without permission.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Just to step back a few posts. . .
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: And yes, I believe there is an incentive system in place.
Do you believe this due to anecdotal evidence, someone telling you there is, or just that's how you believe the world works? I'm just curious.
--------
Also, in your scenario, what happens if the corrupt doctor lets a patient die and they end up not being a match for the millionaire's son? Do they still get a smaller payoff, to compensate for the risk they took in the attempt? Or are they SOL and have to hope another likely canidate comes along before some other unethical doctor hits the jackpot?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Do you believe this due to anecdotal evidence, someone telling you there is, or just that's how you believe the world works? I'm just curious.
Both.
quote:Also, in your scenario, what happens if the corrupt doctor lets a patient die and they end up not being a match for the millionaire's son? Do they still get a smaller payoff, to compensate for the risk they took in the attempt? Or are they SOL and have to hope another likely canidate comes along before some other unethical doctor hits the jackpot?
Presumably, the information on blood typing, tissue matching and whatever other details are necessary to ensure a match would be available to the doctors under the "employ" of an organ brokering agency. I don't know how much of that information is readily available to a doctor about possible victims as they become available.
If they messed up, I have absolutely no idea what would happen. I'd imagine the compensation chart looks very similar to that of a salesman who works on comission: if the organ is sold, they get paid. If it isn't, they don't.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Actually, I was asking because I was hoping some of the medical professionals on board could refute it, and I could use that to calm my mother's fears.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Theaca said pretty strongly that she doesn't believe it happens. She's pretty much the only doctor posting regularly on Hatrack these days, CT isn't around much.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Certainly Theaca's and dkw's posts ought to assauge any fears that it's a systemic occurence and that there's no real likelihood of being an organ donor reducing your chance of receiving the best possible care.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH:
quote:Either Best Buy, if you purchase the warranty separately, or the manufacturer.
Precisely. So it would be possible to purchase a warranty on organs from the organ broker who sold them to you.
-pH
That's just silly. The broker is skimming a fee form the seller and the buyer off each transaction, that's how he makes his money. He certainly isn't going to risk all that just to offer a warranty. It'll be the industry standard NOT to offer a warranty, then no one has to bother with it. Likewise, there's no insurance provider in America that would insure that kind of sale.
The price of healthcare in America would skyrocket if they had to.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There are plenty of retailers making a profit who offer warranties on their products already.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I know, but you're ignoring the biggest problem with that. Those retailers have the benefit of knowing the RELIABILITY of their product. They know that if they offer a warranty on a Aquos plasma tv, it will be good, because they know how EVERY plasma tv is made. They are all identical except for the one in a thousand that has a factory defect. They can accept that kind of risk.
But how can they afford to accept the risk when every transplant is different, there is no reliability, they have no idea if the donor is healthy enough or the organ is healthy enough or the recipiant is healthy enough, or if the doctor is good enough, or if it just plain old doesn't work, regardless of how well everything looked like it was going.
There's just way too much risk and unknown factors involved for them to make any sort of logical positive step towards a blanket warranty on all sales. They'd have to do it on a case by case basis, which I don't see happening either.
Patient 1:
"Everything looks great, we'd like to offer you a warranty."
Patient 2:
"Whoops, sorry, can't afford to take a risk on you with a warranty....but good luck anyway!"
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
How accurate are we right now at predicting the success of a transplant? Isn't it possible that the accuracy would improve if there was some further incentive?
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It is your contention then, that doctors will get better at performing transplants only if there is a massive financial incentive involved?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No, but I think it would speed up progress.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not sure if that's really the kind of progress you want to be making. At least right now there is a culture of life amongst the doctors of the world. Many of them aren't just in it for the money. Sounds to me if we go the way you suggest, for the reasons you suggest, doctors will become all for the money, and the culture of life will take a backseat to the culture of the almighty dollar.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't see how making one type of medical procedure a little more profitable will make all of medicine into a for-profit enterprise, as if it isn't mostly that way already.
-pH
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Personally, I encounter the same hypothetical questions, but I have the same hypothetical questions about all kinds of major crime networks: child pornographers, drug traffickers, importers of illegal products, recruiters for the KKK, international spy & espionage networks, etc. How do ANY of them establish the kinds of contacts they do without running into someone who will blow the whistle?
Who knows - but they do, somehow. Sometimes they get caught. Sometimes corrupt doctors do, too.
quote:Originally posted by Eljay:Yes, I'm a bit of an idealist, but that is tempered with a strong streak of realist. And you just seem to be incredibly cynical. I'm frankly glad I live in my world, not yours.
Fair enough. I'm glad I live in mine, and I don't think yours exists. [/QB]
Erso, your hypothetical scheme has many flaws, some pointed out. But an obvious one is that the people who make the ranking decisions for transplant lists are not "child pornographers, drug traffickers, importers of illegal products, recruiters for the KKK, international spy & espionage networks", or bear any simularities to these criminals. They are professionals chosen for their ethics.
Also, commitees make the decisions, so one guy couldn't launch someone to the top of the list, no matter how much he's paid.
The other criminal conspiracies you mention are busted all the time, often because people turn on them to benefit themselves. When has an organ selling conspiracy, in the US, ever been busted? I don't mean one doc who transplants a kidney after a bribe. I mean a big network like you described,
Ergo, Eros, your cynical conspiracy theory is only absurd.
Maybe so, maybe not. But it's one more risk that is taken were the floodgates to be opened.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Aside from that, what's wrong with people becoming doctors to make money? Plenty of people do that already. Plenty of people become lots of different things to make money. In fact, I'd doubt there are that many doctors who become doctors simply to save lives or whatever other altruistic crap they spew. They want power, prestige, and respect. Money too, although that's less of an issue nowadays with the cost of malpractice insurance skyrocketing.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Any doctors on the board that can attest to that one?
I haven't slightest clue as to what the mainstream motivations are for people becoming doctors.
I have reservations and skepticism though that transplants will become a great deal safer and that much more successful by increasing their frequency and increasing the amount of money that passes between hands.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*sigh* A million just isn't what it used to be, ya know?
Morbo, I actually said there aren't that many "multi-millionaires," by which I meant "people who can afford to drop the $15 million erso was speculating in bribes without going broke." But still, even if we go with the 7.5 million number, that's out of 300 million people in the US. That works out to 2.5% of the population.
According to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network there were 23,522 transplants in the US from January - October 2005. Extrapolating that out for the year it would come to 28,226 transplants for 2005, or .0094% of the population.
I still believe that the intersection of those groups is pretty small, and I don't think that every millionaire on the transplant list is going to try to bribe their way to the top of the list and/or an extra speedy organ delivery. It just doesn't seem like enough to have a network in place to make it possible, regardless of the other absurdities you pointed out.
Oh, and of the 23,522 transplants Jan - Oct, 17,756 of them were from deceased donors and the other 5,766 were from living donors. Makes it an even smaller fraction of a percentage who were possibly neglected for the chance of their organs.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
First of all, do you realize how closely matched people's tissues have to be for some random ill person in an ER to match some random multi-millionaire?
Do you have any idea how hard it was to find a donor for my mother, even though she had lots of living, willing people lining up to give her kidney?
This is where the Star Trek technobabble shite that sounds convincing can get you in trouble. The chances of any two random people being a match are not great. Also, the better the match, the less trouble with rejection. The drugs that keep you from rejecting an organ can kill you eventually, too. That's what happened to my mom. So a millionaire would have to be really picky to get the best match possible for their loved one.
They'd need lots of tissue samples, then hire somebody to off the best match. Could happen, I guess. At least, I saw it on a tv drama. *snort*
"My teachers and/or people who affected my life believe X, so I do too" doesn't hold water either. Smart people can still be paranoid or ill-informed. I know a nurse who was wrong about what an ER 'rape kit' involved, but she thought she knew, and would have sworn to it.
You seriously don't realize how idiotic and paranoid this all sounds. O_O All people's parts are not automatically exchangeable. We are not leggos.
*shrug* But, okay. Whatever. We never landed on the moon and 9/11 was planned by our own government (did a good job, too -- all that other incompetence is just a clever cover-up!).
*
Personally, I have no problem with people accepting payment for, say, bone marrow or a kidney. Those are painful proceedures, and most capitalists believe that exchange does not take place unless it is mutually beneficial.
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
quote:I still believe that the intersection of those groups is pretty small, and I don't think that every millionaire on the transplant list is going to try to bribe their way to the top of the list and/or an extra speedy organ delivery. It just doesn't seem like enough to have a network in place to make it possible, regardless of the other absurdities you pointed out.
I agree. I know people think of the rich as money hungry and greedy but the real truth is most millionaires are just people who manage their wealth well. I think if someone has that much money and is that unscrupulous, they are not going to be rich very long. Also someone that rich could just fly to China or wherever organs are for sale and buy one. It would seem cheaper, easier and more ethical than bribing have a hospital here in the U.S.
Boy, there are some real cynics on here. I have to have faith that most of the doctors are too busy saving my life to notice or care that my driver's license says I am an a organ donor. If God wants my ticket to be up, He will give me an unethical doctor and I can just go to Heaven a little sooner and save a few lives in the process. If it is not my time, they He will make sure I have one of the good docs (of which I believe are in higher supply than implied on this thread).
It's just like some of the threads about teachers. Of course there are a bunch of lousy ones out there. We have all had one or two or work with a few or whatever but for the most part, teachers are just trying to do the best they can. I really think most doctors out there have the best interest of their patients at heart. There are money hungry, power trippers with a God complex, sure, but they are fewer and far between. Again maybe I watch too much TV, but still I would rather live in my world than some of yours (LOVE that quote).
[edited: darn typos!]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But an obvious one is that the people who make the ranking decisions for transplant lists are not "child pornographers, drug traffickers, importers of illegal products, recruiters for the KKK, international spy & espionage networks", or bear any simularities to these criminals. They are professionals chosen for their ethics.
Given that doctors and medical professionals make up a portion of those criminal networks, I have to disagree that they bear no similarities. People are people. Priests, preachers and pastors are theoretically chosen for their spiritual and ethical purity - how many documented molestor priest cases are there? Policemen are chosen, theoretically, for their ability and dedication to their jobs. How many documented corrupt policeman cases are there? How many teachers that molested their students? Politicians are chosen, theoretically, on their ability to govern and implement policy in a way that pleases the majority of the people. How many corrupt politicians are there?
quote:Ergo, Eros, your cynical conspiracy theory is only absurd.
<shrug> If you say so.
quote:"My teachers and/or people who affected my life believe X, so I do too" doesn't hold water either. Smart people can still be paranoid or ill-informed. I know a nurse who was wrong about what an ER 'rape kit' involved, but she thought she knew, and would have sworn to it.
Hence my refusal to admit anecdotal evidence. You seem pretty willing to do so, though.
quote:You seriously don't realize how idiotic and paranoid this all sounds. O_O All people's parts are not automatically exchangeable. We are not leggos.
I indicated I have no idea how difficult it is to match organ donors to organ recipients, but that I do recognize it's much more complicated than matching blood types.
Feel better, having called me an idiot?
quote:*shrug* But, okay. Whatever. We never landed on the moon and 9/11 was planned by our own government (did a good job, too -- all that other incompetence is just a clever cover-up!).
*yawn* Yep, and all Republicans are Fascists! And all priests are child molestors! And all religion is mind-candy designed to sedate the masses into controllable blobs of protoplasm!
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:It's just like some of the threads about teachers. Of course there are a bunch of lousy ones out there. We have all had one or two or work with a few or whatever but for the most part, teachers are just trying to do the best they can. I really think most doctors out there have the best interest of their patients at heart. There are money hungry, power trippers with a God complex, sure, but they are fewer and far between. Again maybe I watch too much TV, but still I would rather live in my world than some of yours (LOVE that quote).
See, I happen to agree that most doctors out there have the best interest of their patients at heart, that most teachers are there to teach, that most priests are there to minister to the faithful.
What I disagree with is the people in this thread who don't think there are ANY doctors who are in the medical field for a reason other than treating people. One is an acknowledgement of reality - the other is recognizing reality and then deliberately choosing to ignore it, which strikes me as a very dangerous way of looking at the world.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think anyone on this thread has said they don't believe there are ANY doctors who are just in it for the money. I know I certainly haven't.
I don't believe that there are enough doctors willing to murder for money and enough multi-millionaires on the organ transplant list to make your hypothetical organ ring feisable.
Plus there are many other reasons I don't think it would work. You skipped over the "Also, commitees make the decisions, so one guy couldn't launch someone to the top of the list, no matter how much he's paid." part of Morbo's post, for instance.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think anyone on this thread has said they don't believe there are ANY doctors who are just in it for the money. I know I certainly haven't.
Here's Theaca: "I am absolutely appalled that some of you think that doctors wouldn't fight as hard for an organ donor. What, you think they fight harder for random persons they never met rather than the person lying right there in front of them? Hogwash."
Edit to clarify: Theaca's quote implies that doctors are immune to external influences in determining who they treat.
quote:Plus there are many other reasons I don't think it would work. You skipped over the "Also, commitees make the decisions, so one guy couldn't launch someone to the top of the list, no matter how much he's paid." part of Morbo's post, for instance.
You're right, I missed it. Sorry.
quote:Also, commitees make the decisions, so one guy couldn't launch someone to the top of the list, no matter how much he's paid.
Fair enough. So let's give you all the benefit of the doubt here and say that my hypothetical situation doesn't work.
Do you still insist that no hypothetical situation would? I maintain that there ARE ways for the right amount of money to move someone up a transplant list, since pretty much everything's for sale in America if you know where to look.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
There was a Law and Order earlier this week about a guy who would donate organs to people if he felt that they were trying to lead noble lives, but this one woman wanted to help kids and be a social worker or something, but then she decided to become a stay-at-home mom, so he shot her and had the kidney he donated to her given to another woman that he felt was going to stick to her promises.
/random.
-pH
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I just pointed out that there are lots of millionaires, more than a million in the US, but I didn't mean that to support eroso's conspiracy theory.
quote: What I disagree with is the people in this thread who don't think there are ANY doctors who are in the medical field for a reason other than treating people. One is an acknowledgement of reality - the other is recognizing reality and then deliberately choosing to ignore it, which strikes me as a very dangerous way of looking at the world.
You are mischaracterizing people's views here. Are there doctors who are in it for the money, or other banal reasons? Of course. There are probably even a few who would murder for profit.
But it's a far cry to go from that to an organized conspiracy of doctors willing to murder for profit.
I don't think I have a Pollyanish, fluffy bunny view of the world. But you are not "recognizing reality" erso. You are embracing a farfetched and evil conspiracy theory, with only conjecture and no proof, as reality. That's sad. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Here's Theaca: "I am absolutely appalled that some of you think that doctors wouldn't fight as hard for an organ donor. What, you think they fight harder for random persons they never met rather than the person lying right there in front of them? Hogwash." Edit to clarify: Theaca's quote implies that doctors are immune to external influences in determining who they treat.
Theaca was responding to a line of discussion that started with (edit: it was blacwolve) trying to get information on a general assertion that being an organ donor meant one would receive inferior care.
She was responding to a general assertion about doctors with a general statement about how doctors behave. It is not a fair reading of that post to suggest she doesn't think any doctor ever would act poorly.
[ January 28, 2006, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:But it's a far cry to go from that to an organized conspiracy of doctors willing to murder for profit.
I don't think I have a Pollyanish, fluffy bunny view of the world. But you are not "recognizing reality" erso. You are embracing a farfetched and evil conspiracy theory, with only conjecture and no proof, as reality. That's sad.
Even if the organized network I presented as a possibility (note the "presented as a possibility," as opposed to "stated as undeniable fact" that you seem to be assuming) does not work, the point here is: are there enough doctors willing to murder (if, in some of their eyes, it would even BE murder) for profit that an incentive system is possible?
I think there are. There are hundreds of thousands of people in America willing to murder for profit.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:She was responding to a general assertion about doctors with a general statement about how doctors behave. It is not a fair reading of that post to suggest she doesn't think any doctor ever would act poorly.
Sorry, I think it's a perfectly fair reading of that post. When someone uses the phrase "absolutely appalled" in a statement, I tend to see a complete exclusion of any other possibilities.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I would argue that Theaca's quote doesn't have a bearing on why the doctor is in the medical field. Maybe they became a doctor for money, power, or prestige, as opposed to out of altuisim and a desire to help people. I honestly think that's one of the reasons we give money and prestige to doctors, because we need them, and there are not enough people who would do it purely out of a love of the work.
But their motivation for becoming a doctor doesn't speak to how they treat the patient who is in front of them. So I don't think you can use her quote to say that there are people in this thread saying that they "don't think there are ANY doctors who are in the medical field for a reason other than treating people."
----
I do not disagree that there may be ways to move up on the transplant list. I've said that before in this thread. I think it's more likely that it happens through large donations to hospitals than bribery of individuals, but you never know.
I do not believe that there is an incentive for doctors to let people die in order to harvest their organs, above or below the board. I do not believe that an organ donor coming into an emergency room will receive any different treatment than a non-organ donor. I think if it ever happened, that we would have heard of documented cases of it by now, as there have been documented cases of illegal smuggling rings and all your other examples. No one is smart enough to maintain something this complex and involving this many people in completely secrecy for years on end.
I also think the fact that there is only one organ transplant organization in any particular geographic region works to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen. They rely on people trusting in them to exist. They have a very, very strong motivation to make sure there are triple-checks on everything, or no one would be willing to donate their loved one's organs. Even if you sign a donor card, you know, your family still has to give the okay. If things were set up so the sort of thing you're talking about could happen, they could let all the patients they want die, they'd never get a payoff because no one would donate the organs.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Ok, you're saying it's a possibility, not a reality. By the same token, it's a reality that if a person is murdered in the future, the most likly suspects would be that person's friends and family. Does that mean you won't accept care from relatives when ill?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I think if it ever happened, that we would have heard of documented cases of it by now
True, and I'm inclined to think that there ARE documented cases of this sort of thing happening. I'll have to spend some time looking it up, though. And I could be wrong.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac:
quote:She was responding to a general assertion about doctors with a general statement about how doctors behave. It is not a fair reading of that post to suggest she doesn't think any doctor ever would act poorly.
Sorry, I think it's a perfectly fair reading of that post. When someone uses the phrase "absolutely appalled" in a statement, I tend to see a complete exclusion of any other possibilities.
It's a terribly unfair reading of Theaca's post. The original assertion was that "no one" would try as hard to save an organ donor because "they would get the organs." Theaca's post must be read in the context of the post that started the line of discussion.
P.S., blacwolve, I realize you were looking for information on this statement, not asserting it as fact.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: . . . are there enough doctors willing to murder (if, in some of their eyes, it would even BE murder) for profit that an incentive system is possible?
I think there are. There are hundreds of thousands of people in America willing to murder for profit.
Even if the numbers are there, I don't think an incentive system is possible. How could it work? You would need someone within the Transplant organization willing to take the initial bribe and send the word out to the willing doctors. There are hundreds of hospitals in the country, tens of thousands of doctors. (Millions of doctors?) How do you identify willing doctors? How do you approach them? How do you get all of them information on the tissue samples so they can look for matches? How do they get a tissue sample from their patient analysed to see if it's a potential match? How do you launder the money so it doesn't show up in an IRS audit? Every single one of them manages to pull it all off without anyone being caught, ever?
Added: On the tissue sample issue -- what I'm thinking here is that the lab won't do an analysis without a reason that's acceptable to the insurance company. If a doctor is going around ordering tests for no apparent reason, the insurance isn't going to pay for it. Every test I've had done has had to either come off a list of pre-approved for my condition or be approved by my insurance before they'll do it. If the patient is uninsured, the lab is going to be even more careful about only doing necessary tests, because they know they're not getting paid. The doctor does not have to equipment or probably the training to do the tissue matching on his own.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Ok, you're saying it's a possibility, not a reality. By the same token, it's a reality that if a person is murdered in the future, the most likly suspects would be your friends and family.
Does that make you not want accept care from relatives when ill?
This brings up a completely unrelated issue, but to address it: no, that does not make me want to deny care from relatives when ill, the same way my belief in an illegal organ incentive program doesn't stop me from being an organ donor.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Even if the numbers are there, I don't think an incentive system is possible. How could it work? You would need someone within the Transplant organization willing to take the initial bribe and send the word out to the willing doctors. There are hundreds of hospitals in the country, tens of thousands of doctors. (Millions of doctors?) How do you identify willing doctors? How do you approach them? How do you get all of them information on the tissue samples so they can look for matches? How do they get a tissue sample from their patient analysed to see if it's a potential match? How do you launder the money so it doesn't show up in an IRS audit? Every single one of them manages to pull it all off without anyone being caught, ever?
If I knew the answers to all of those questions, I would either be helping expose illegal organ incentive programs, or running one myself.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Will someone please explain to me what is so fundamentally wrong with being in something for the money, anyway? I mean, really.
-pH
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
pH, nothing. No one is saying it is. What they're saying is that there's a difference between entering a profession for the money and being willing to kill for money. And that it's not fair to doctors to assume that you're going to receive sub-par treatment if you're an organ donor because they might get a kick-back out of it.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:And that it's not fair to doctors to assume that you're going to receive sub-par treatment if you're an organ donor because they might get a kick-back out of it.
No one's saying that, either - I'm saying that the possibility exists. I thought we went over this when I clarified my use of the word "absolutely."
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
(As an aside, ElJay, I'm sorry I resorted to snide remarks earlier.)
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*shrug* I thought that the general tone of the discussion warrented it being said. Not that that's your fault -- it's always difficult when you're trying to defend your position against multiple others who disagree.
And no worries. I'm in this conversation because I enjoy this type of conversation, besides the fact that I honestly believe you're wrong. A little snideness doesn't bother me -- especially when I started it by calling you a conspiricy theorist. Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: . . . are there enough doctors willing to murder (if, in some of their eyes, it would even BE murder) for profit that an incentive system is possible?
I think there are. There are hundreds of thousands of people in America willing to murder for profit.
Even if the numbers are there, I don't think an incentive system is possible. How could it work? You would need someone within the Transplant organization willing to take the initial bribe and send the word out to the willing doctors. There are hundreds of hospitals in the country, tens of thousands of doctors. (Millions of doctors?) How do you identify willing doctors? How do you approach them? How do you get all of them information on the tissue samples so they can look for matches? How do they get a tissue sample from their patient analysed to see if it's a potential match? How do you launder the money so it doesn't show up in an IRS audit? Every single one of them manages to pull it all off without anyone being caught, ever?
This reminds me of Chris Rock's stand-up bit making fun of OJ's defense that the LAPD framed him. Like on the night of the murders, the word went out to all the cops: "Frame OJ!"
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*giggle*
Basically, unless someone finds some evidence of a case where a doctor received an incentive for providing an organ donor or let a patient die to provide one, I'm done. I think everything that needs to be said pretty much has.
(I'm not talking about people who did unasked for "mercy killings" because they thought it was best, I know those people are out there and consider an entirely different form of psychois than the one we're talking about.)
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:This reminds me of Chris Rock's stand-up bit making fun of OJ's defense that the LAPD framed him. Like on the night of the murders, the word went out to all the cops: "Frame OJ!"
That was Dana Carvey. I've seen that stand up a lot...does it show?
[/nitpick]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Thank you for the correction, it was a funny stand-up.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
pH, are you saying that you think greed is a virtue?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm sure there are doctors who do that. (Wasn't that a Law and Order, too? Maybe CI?) But most doctors I know of fight until the fight is lost-- and then they fight for the right to make the loss into the possible winning of someone else's battle.
It just breaks my heart that more people aren't organ donors, though, and that even less will allow their children to be. (I just read an article about a family with 4 or 5 month old identical twin boys, both of whom need heart transplants. )
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "My teachers and/or people who affected my life believe X, so I do too" doesn't hold water either. Smart people can still be paranoid or ill-informed. I know a nurse who was wrong about what an ER 'rape kit' involved, but she thought she knew, and would have sworn to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hence my refusal to admit anecdotal evidence. You seem pretty willing to do so, though.
[/quote}
It wasn't YOU specifically I was referring to, but the idea that many people die every day because paranoid people die without having signed their donor cards. Because daddy said people kill you for your organs. That's just sad.
[quote]quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You seriously don't realize how idiotic and paranoid this all sounds. O_O All people's parts are not automatically exchangeable. We are not leggos. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I indicated I have no idea how difficult it is to match organ donors to organ recipients, but that I do recognize it's much more complicated than matching blood types.
Feel better, having called me an idiot?
I never called YOU an idiot. I do think some of the arguments in this thread seem paranoid and idiotic to people who do have actual experience with how transplants work. I stand by that. But it was in no way a personal attack. I did not intend it that way, at all. I would not set out to hurt anyone's feelings like that.
I like that Hatrack is a place where people can discuss ideas and not let it degenerate into namecalling. I realize that some people identify so closely with their opinions that insult can be inferred, but I didn't mean it.
I'd take you out for cofee to apologize if I could. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
. . .and drug your coffee and steal your organs.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I thought I felt odd after that Frangelico!
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*note to self: if planning to drug Rivka, check with Tante first to make sure said drug is kosher*
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: pH, are you saying that you think greed is a virtue?
I'm saying that I have no problem with making money. But you know, I'd love to have a Richard Branson-esque worldwide empire someday.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That's not quite the same as what you said before, though. "Being in it for the money" implies that wealth accumulation is the person's principal or only goal, as opposed to wealth being a side effect, perk, or bonus of the person's chosen career path.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I find it comforting to know that -- speaking as someone who values cold cash more than paltry human life -- there is so much money to be made by offing my patients and auctioning their organs on the black market.
Who knew?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Come to think of it, you can never have too many kidneys...
Hey, CT! Think you could set me up with one? I'd prefer it from someone young and healthy, non-drinker, non-smoker, you know?
Note: I'm only just kidding. Swear. *shifty-eyes*
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Well, you know, my patient base is kinda young, but I figure that way I have more control over the lifestyle habits they adopt. I push the "no smoking, safer-sex and moderate alcohol use" thing pretty hard.
Suckers.
So, we'll need to do an HLA-typing, I guess. Send me a refrigerated vial of your blood (heparinized to prevent clotting) by Express Mail, and as soon as I can figure out a way to stick needles into all these babies for no good reason, we'll roll the dice.
And, um, it's gonna cost ya.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: That's not quite the same as what you said before, though. "Being in it for the money" implies that wealth accumulation is the person's principal or only goal, as opposed to wealth being a side effect, perk, or bonus of the person's chosen career path.
...and this is a bad thing why?
-pH
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
Well, in my experience, doctors who choose medicine for the sole reason of getting rich are extremely unhappy. They make everyone around them unhappy.
Choosing a field for money sounds nice till you work like a dog for five years as a resident (yes, primary care residencies are three years but you don't get nearly as much money) working 100 hours a week, call every other night, always being chewed out by somebody. Then you start a career and get sued several times, work 12 hour days, with lots of call. Sure, the money rolls in after you pay off the loans. But you hardly have any time to use it. After a few years of this you become very bitter. Stop caring. Start counting the years to retirement. It's a horrible way to live.
Now, there ARE exceptions. There are some doctors in some fields that make tons of money with little effort. Dermatologists, for example, have a pretty good life. You have to have very high grades to get into it. Cream of the crop medical students. Same goes for Hollywood plastic surgeons. And by the time you've managed to have higher grades than everyone else around long enough to get the high paying job, you've still worked nonstop for several unhappy years. Many many unhappy years, if it is a surgical subspecialty like plastic surgery. Assuming you're just in it for the money.
If the doctor isn't compassionate or doesn't really find solving challenging cases fun, then he isn't going to try very hard to help people. He might even lean towards doing procedures that make him more money.
I sure wouldn't want to see a doctor like that, personally.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I find it comforting to know that -- speaking as someone who values cold cash more than paltry human life -- there is so much money to be made by offing my patients and auctioning their organs on the black market.
Who knew?
(emphasis added)
Pfft. You obviously haven't been watching the right late night infomercials. Carlton Sheets has a whole CD set on the subject.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
That wasn't my question. I have no doubt that many doctors who go into it for the sole purpose of making money are both unhappy and disappointed, with the rising cost of malpractice insurance (which I previously mentioned).
My question was, why is it that the grand majority of the people here seem to think that going into something with the goal of making money is an inherently bad thing?
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I was interested in clarifying my understanding of your opinion, but since you asked, I do think it's a bad thing in primary and acute medical care, which are the fields relevant to this discussion. I read your last post to mean that you do think the pursuit of wealth for its own sake as a primary goal is at worst morally neutral, possibly laudable. I take it you don't belong to a religion that enumerates greed in general among the bad things.
In the specific case of primary and acute medical care, I think being in it for the money is, well, kind of stupid. There are comparably lucrative fields with much lower cost barriers to entry and where the work is less stressful and time-consuming. Even within medicine there are other areas that make a lot more sense for a wealth-oriented person. Being a primary or acute care physician is not a job, it's a life, and it's a life where you are perpetually responsible for the lives of other humans. If your focus is on the dollars and not on the lives, you're more likely to only do the minimum required to avoid malpractice suits. I think that means you're less likely to be good at what you do; this translates to reduced quality of care and ultimately loss of human lives when the profit motive is central in health care.
In other words, I think that primary and acute care doctors who aren't in it for the money are better doctors. Therefore, I think that being in such a field for the money is bad.
Added: I didn't see Theaca's post, since she made it while I was writing. Also, pH, you didn't answer my original question -- you've said you don't think greed is bad, but I'm curious if you think it's praiseworthy.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I read your last post to mean that you do think the pursuit of wealth for its own sake as a primary goal is at worst morally neutral, possibly laudable. I take it you don't belong to a religion that enumerates greed in general among the bad things. [Wink]
I'm Christian, thanks.
I don't think that the quest for wealth automatically means that one is going to behave unethically or conduct oneself in an otherwise undesirable manner. In fact, it makes very little sense to behave that way, if one considers one's career over the course of one's lifetime as opposed to taking a get-rich-quick attitude.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I think there's a difference between having the accrual of wealth for its own sake as your primary goal and having the maintenance of a certain quality of life (for which wealth accrual is generally a prerequisite in many aspects) as your primary goal. I'm talking specifically about the former in the context of professions where the practitioner is directly responsible for human lives.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's an ongoing Slate column called "Human Nature" about research and advances in biotechnology. Here's a recent entry with some relevance to the organ discussion; it seems that Dagonee is prescient.
quote:Hundreds of Americans have received tissue from plundered corpses. Roughly a million transplants each year come from corpses; from 2004 to 2005, at least 134 patients got tissue now known to have been stolen without the deceased's (pre-death) consent. Recipients' complaints: 1) My new body part is from an old person, not a young one as the doctors claimed. 2) My new body part is from someone who didn't want to be "chopped up." 3) My new body part gave me syphilis. Authority quoted by the Washington Post on the wrongness of corpse-looting: FDA spokesman Stephen King.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of note, in regards to the case referenced by Slate, there is no question of living people having been denied life-saving treatment. (What actually happened is grotesque enough, but it did not involve the deliberate actions of paramedics, nurses, or physicians. That is clear.)
Apparently a former dentist and IV drug abuser had gone through rehab and, after surrendering his dental license, went into the body-harvesting business. He operated out of a third-floor office uilding, and his independent business "was not an accredited member of the American Association of Tissue Banks, nor did the company ever apply."
He went to funeral homes and collected organs from corpses after someone (? him? funeral home? not clear to me) had forged paperwork that authorized donation.
Of special note is that corpses are removed from medical facilities, and IMO there is much much much much less oversight over what happens to them than there is for living patients. Thus, for example, the relatively recent discovery of a Georgia (US) "crematorium" that was just tossing the bodies out in the woods.
quote:Biomedical Tissue Services operated out of a third-floor office suite not far from the George Washington Bridge, on the fringe of a large industry with a low profile. Its president is Michael Mastromarino, who once had a thriving dental practice off Fifth Avenue and a specialty in implant surgery. Over the years, he struggled with drug abuse and was sued for malpractice by several patients, one of whom accused Mastromarino of deserting a patient under general anesthesia in mid-operation.
Mastromarino was found, according to the lawsuit, in his bathroom with a hypodermic needle stuck in his arm, blood on the floor. Mastromarino surrendered his dental license six years ago, went into rehab and two years ago went into the tissue recovery business.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Nice heads-up, Senoj. I have many grave reservations (no pun intended) about the selling of human organs, and this just highlights potential fallout.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Authority quoted by the Washington Post on the wrongness of corpse-looting: FDA spokesman Stephen King .
Seriously?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I don't see what all this has to do with my selling the organs from my body. I clearly didn't kill someone and take them, or steal them from a corpse since they're in my body.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)