Should I be an organ donor?

[SNOWBALL]

Is it true that the doctors don't work as hard to save you if you are an organ donor?

[chrisnice]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it true that the doctors don't work as hard to save you if you are an organ donor?

[/ QUOTE ]

I very much doubt it. Either way you should certainly be an organ donor. You should also give blood as often as you can. Tiny sacrifices that mean the world to someone else.

[pilliwinks]

As the bumper sticker says: don't take your organs to heaven. Heaven knows we need them here.

It's not obviously in the doctor's interest to get your organs - surely it just means more work and forms to fill in if you die.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Tiny sacrifices that mean the world to someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might get more of those sacrifices if they actually gave the donors something in exchange.

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tiny sacrifices that mean the world to someone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

They might get more of those sacrifices if they actually gave the donors something in exchange.

[/ QUOTE ]

"I'd gladly pay you tuesday..for a hamburger today!"

or..the opposite...kind of

[hmkpoker]

No, I mean like giving people money for their blood.

C'mon, this isn't hard.

[SNOWBALL]

I put the sticker on my liscense. I am now a donor.

[Cerril]

There are reports of people in very particular situations being given the axe just a little early in order to save organs that have a shelf life that is very very short. It's hard to believe that there hasn't been at least one case where someone who would have otherwise lived was allowed to die (or worse) for the sake of having their organs harvested.

That said, I don't really consider that a huge risk to take or a deterrent, and it certainly isn't going to come up in the vast majority of cases. So if that was all that was stopping you, then good choice.

And I'll go ahead and not dwell on how to answer the 'should' here. Because if anyone is even asking the question, then I would say the sense of well being attached to being a doner has basically no downside.

[posnera]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it true that the doctors don't work as hard to save you if you are an organ donor?

[/ QUOTE ]

First off, the donor and recipient are rarely at the same hospital and are not taken care of by the same doctors. This helps to eliminate some of the conflict of interest potential.

As for your question, probably the exact opposite. If you are not an organ donor, and are critically/fatally wounded, then there isn't much upside in struggling to keep your organs functioning, because your likelyhood of survival is essentially zero. If, on the other hand, your organs can be harvested for donation, then there is a big advantage in struggling to keep them functioning for a few more hours.

In reality, I don't think there is any difference in the care you would receive. In my experience, many organ donations come from patients who are brain dead, but whose bodies are functioning for the time being. So the time/effort element is removed. Noone is going to let a relatively young, healthy person who has been in a car accident die in order to get organs for donation.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

[ QUOTE ]
No, I mean like giving people money for their blood.

C'mon, this isn't hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, there have been studies done on this, where the clinics pay people to donate blood. there is a temporary short term spike in donations, but after x period of time, the places that offered money actually recieved LESS blood than those that did not.

[tomdemaine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I mean like giving people money for their blood.

C'mon, this isn't hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, there have been studies done on this, where the clinics pay people to donate blood. there is a temporary short term spike in donations, but after x period of time, the places that offered money actually recieved LESS blood than those that did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

explain that market boy /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[diebitter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I mean like giving people money for their blood.

C'mon, this isn't hard.

[/ QUOTE ]




actually, there have been studies done on this, where the clinics pay people to donate blood. there is a temporary short term spike in donations, but after x period of time, the places that offered money actually recieved LESS blood than those that did not.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wasn't this mentioned in Freakonomics?

[thing85]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, I mean like giving people money for their blood.

C'mon, this isn't hard.

[/ QUOTE ]


actually, there have been studies done on this, where the clinics pay people to donate blood. there is a temporary short term spike in donations, but after x period of time, the places that offered money actually recieved LESS blood than those that did not.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wasn't this mentioned in Freakonomics?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yes. To quote the author, speaking about the study that was done:

[ QUOTE ]
Their discovery: when people are given a small stipend for donating blood rather than simply being praised for their altruism, they tend to donate less blood. The stipend turned a noble act of charity into a painful way to make a few dollars, and it wasn't worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I do think that a monetary compensation for donating blood would attract people who ONLY do it for that reason, why would the people who "feel good" about doing all of a sudden lose that feeling? It seems like this would simply add to the incentives such that a person could walk out of there saying "I did a great deed and made a few bucks doing it too." Can't incentives coexist? Maybe this is a discussion for another thread, but it seems like the OP made up his mind already, so hopefully he won't mind the slight change in topic.

[Darryl_P]

[ QUOTE ]
explain that market boy




[/ QUOTE ]

It's one of those friggin' non-economic goods again that keeps messin' up the ACers' calculations. If only people would realize that these are insignificant, the world could finally progress (not) /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[The Dude]

I have nothing to contibute except that organ donors rock. That and I am an organ donor. Do the math.

[posnera]

Obviously the andwer is yes, unless you have some religious objection.

Here's a better question: If you are riding a motorcycle without a helmet, should you automatically be an organ donor regardless of your wishes?

Or, to take it a step further, should organ donation be a "opt-out" rather than an "opt-in" situation? As in - if you didn't explicitly say no, your organs are up for grabs?

[Peter666]

"There are reports of people in very particular situations being given the axe just a little early in order to save organs that have a shelf life that is very very short. It's hard to believe that there hasn't been at least one case where someone who would have otherwise lived was allowed to die (or worse) for the sake of having their organs harvested."

This is precisely the problem. An overzealous doctor may end up killing you for the sake of saving somebody else. I'm sure it happens way more often than we think.

The decision of donating organs should only be made if you can trust the doctor doing the procedure. Unfortunately, in most cases this is impractical.

[posnera]

OK, fine. No organ donation unless you can "trust the doctor." As long as you won't accept an organ if you need one, this seems fair. If, though, when you are dying and need a transplant, will you still want this standard to be upheld?

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, fine. No organ donation unless you can "trust the doctor." As long as you won't accept an organ if you need one, this seems fair. If, though, when you are dying and need a transplant, will you still want this standard to be upheld?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I would want this standard to be upheld because I would not want to cause the unnecessary death of another human being to save my own. It would be on my conscience.

Of course, it should be on the conscience of the doctor doing the procedure even more.