We're all organ doners now...
- Thread starter MrWhippy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,094
- Location
- Surrey
I'm really surprised that people care so much about what happens to their bodies when they die. I mean, normally you either get buried or cremated... you either rot or burn... so I find it hard to understand why, if you have a perfectly good organ, you wouldn't let someone else have it.
You'll be dead though?
Well no.
The doctor will claim you Clinically dead.
But you are not dead...dead
What?
It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive.
"In summary, no heartbeat + no breathing + no brain activity = clinical death, but it does not necessarily spell Death. Clinical death is treated as a medical emergency, with CPR and the like following. Only when a physician calls off the efforts and throws in the towel can brain or biological death, eventually followed by legal death, be declared. In the U.S., this marks the removal of “personhood” from the deceased’s body."
You didn't know the difference!
I agree with your post, the only way to get consent given the option when you register at a new gp, this gives the person a choice and everyone would be informed.
Once you are forced then there is no choice, plus as you say would the donor get proper care if there is a chance of recovery, or would the doctor just write off the donor and wait to raid his organs.
How long till back handers are involved when a wealthy person needs a donor and a poor person had 10 % chance of living would the doctor just give up and allow the person to die? Because we all know things will gradually change people are greedy, it does not matter what regulations are in place to stop this it will happen.
Remember Liverpool path way? People were given a death sentence and some families took over care and person recovered.
Last edited:
I think what he's saying is, "if you still hate the filthy jerb stealing immigrants in the afterlife, are you ever truly dead?"
The attending doctor and the transplant doctor are independent of each other.
I still don't understand any point you are trying to make.
Soldato
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 4,590
Depends on the life being saved, there are some people here who can go F themselves.
You truly believe that? I dont.
So you are a conspiracy theorist as well. Makes sense.
And what exactly stops this ridiculous scenario happening right now with existing opted-in donors?
That's a bit like saying that the chief cook and the chief engineer are independent of one another. Their roles may be different and not directly related to one another, but they both serve on the same ship!
Nothing at all, which is probably one of the main reasons why many people are unwilling to opt in...
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 35,711
Who would you not save? name 5?
Well, to consider the question from a more objective and wider perspective.
Would it be considered appropriate to offer a transplant to somebody, say, serving a life sentence for raping a Baby??
Or should people with serious criminal records generally, serving time or not. be excluded from being considered for treatment?
Or should transplant options be available to all comers depending solely on clinical need and possible outcome regardless of who they might be?
Indeed, If transplants are off the table for people with serious criminal records, should other treatments options be withheld too (EG some Cancer treatments)?