It's a tricky situation. Perhaps people should be allowed to give priority to their family members, but you have to recognize that basing priority for these things on anything other than who is most at need is going to result in a less-than optimal allocation of the organs. For instance, what if a donor (or his/her family) could designate anyone as the recipient of their organs? There would be a big incentive for ill people to buy the rights to other people's organs, and the rich would be able to skip in line in front of others.
1. A close family member is more likely to be a match. 2. In this case, the deceased had a child that lived with her and the mother. Now the mother is going to die of kidney failure. What happenes to the child?
This sucks, but it isn't socialized medicine's fault. The transplant waiting list in the U.S. has similar rules and regulations. Official A Summary
This is a great argument against national health care except for the fact that it has nothing to do with it whatsoever - nice thread title!
Where did it say slow? I am sure socialized medicine is to blame for the daughters asthma in the first place, right? It really is funny seeing people try to demonize socialized medicine. It is not as if this is an unknown danger - every other major country has a form of it and they still exist.
There should be a private market for human organs, it's ridiculous that their isn't. We put so many perfectly healthy organs in the ground for no good reason. If I died unexpectedly for some reason, I could sell my organs and my family would be set for a good while. Or if I was poor I could sell my kidney for money to get a start in life, and someone else would have a new kidney, win-win. Either way, I should have that option. It would also greatly increase the supply of organs available, if there was monetary compensation (this happens already anyway on the black market where it isn't out in the open).
Adrian McNeil, chief executive of the HTA, said: "The central principle of matching and allocating organs from the deceased is that they are allocated to the person on the UK Transplant waiting list who is most in need and who is the best match with the donor. "In line with this central principle, a person cannot choose to whom their organ can be given when they die; nor can their family." Since these two criteria, being the "best match" and being the person "most in need" from a health perspective are precisely what the selection of recipients is based on, I don't think that you can validly base your objections on those issues. Your other point was this: Of course, the fact that there is a child who is now dependent on the grandmother means that it is important that the grandmother receive a kidney soon. However, it does not mean that she should specifically receive her daughter's kidney. As an aside, raises a whole new set of problems. Should people with dependents receive priority in the allocation of donated organs? If so, then why not take other measures of how important it is that a person continue living? Should the selection of recipients incorporate an "importance index" to decide who is most valuable? Another slippery slope. I think the thread title, other than the misleading bit about "socialized medicine", kind of misses the point. It's not so much that the mother was denied her daughter's organs; she was just given the same consideration as anyone else in choosing who should receive them. What she was denied was any special priority over others. Again, it can be debated whether donors or their families should be able to choose the recipients of their organs, but it's important that we look at the pros and cons of that more concisely rather than just go with our immediate emotional responses.
I agree that a financial incentive to donate would increase the total supply of organs, but allowing people to sell and purchase organs has some nasty implications. Where does it leave poor people who need organs? With organs being sold to wealthier people, there will be many less available for those who can't afford to pay. Also, potential donors would have an incentive to hide health problems that might otherwise prevent them from donating.
If you want to give your organs away to a poor person, that's fine. But if you would rather sell them, that should be ok too. They are your organs after all.
Ok, but what about the objections I outlined above? The fact that people could still choose to donate for free does not change the fact that many people who otherwise would have donated for free would decide to sell their organs to someone wealthy enough to pay. Thus, there would be less organs available for ill people who could not afford to buy organs. Also, people who shouldn't be donors because of problems with their organs would have an incentive to hide the problems and sell their organs, leading to safety problems.
How much would a kidney sell for on the open market? What about an oversized testis? just curious...I could be looking to sell
WHATTT?????????? And abbreviate your lucrative career in sperm sales? Your man-milk is in demand, as you have reminded us. I am sick to my own stomach at the thought of bigtexxx minus a few x's.
I was referring to her brain-dead status achieved before the ambulance arrived.... but thanks for the accusatory tone! I don't know whose fault that was but it struck me as odd. If you'll notice, I asked a question... Did you get your check from Michael Moore yet? Yes, those countries with socialized medicine still exist but when push comes to shove their people who can come to the US for serious healthcare.
