Pretty typical medical FUD. Take a very unlikely situation, add a bunch of unsupported hypotheses, then bring it all home with a graphic description of one highly questionable case.
I'm not saying that there haven't been cases where doctors have been overzealous in harvesting organs, but most doctors are much more committed to keeping a patient alive than sending them out for harvest.
Leslie sharpe is an ethnographer who wrote a whole book on organ donation after studying the topic called Strange Harvest. This article speaks to a lot of unnecessary and selfish criticism of organ donation practices. Doctors work very hard to ensure the patient is brain dead. There are a lot of reasons covered in the book about why it would make sense for doctors not to notify family members of what is about to happen to the dead body. The number one reason is that organ donation usually comes about from traumatic death, and it is often very difficult for the families to accept that the person truely is dead. Furthermore, the closer to death you can harvest the organs, the higher likelihood that the organ transplant will succeed. If the family has a decision in what happens to the dead body they might try to delay the process as they grieve and as they try to come to terms with the body truly being dead, and this can hurt the likelihood of success for organ transplantation.
I'm not saying that there haven't been cases where doctors have been overzealous in harvesting organs, but most doctors are much more committed to keeping a patient alive than sending them out for harvest.
Well, where money can be involved, I'd like to err on the side of cautious...
Or even if there are not money to be involved but just "good intentions".
How about the doctor doesn't give a rat's ass about the routine-check-deemed "brain dead" patient and overlooks some criteria to rush and help those in need of transplant? Is it absurd that a doctor could possibly prioritize helping other people over some badly injured guy?
This article is ridiculous. I don't understand, either, why people are so afraid of dying… it's a normal part of life. For my part, if I have an accident, I don't care what criteria my death follows, I wouldn't want to live with a broken brainstem, nor be artificially revived. If my organs can help somebody else, all the better.
The only part that alarmed me is the possibility that you could feel pain while your organs were being harvested. There are few things that I'm more afraid of than anesthesia awareness, and they're making it sound like there's a possibility of a similar thing.
Would it be a major hardship to require an EEG test to certify brain death? Seems like the biggest problem would be that not everyone would have the equipment, but surely they would have it in a hospital doing organ transplants? IANAD, though.
An EEG cannot and does not provide conclusive evidence of brain death. Far from it. It is merely a diagnostic tool to assist a diagnosis -- the actual diagnosis of death is medically and legally dependent upon a physician. There are criteria for establishing death but they are often out of date (drowning and freezing spring to mind) and can be poorly interpreted.
They have also got it wrong before -- times too numerous to mention.
Caution is very necessary here. Its a complicated subject (legally, morally, ethically, scientifically and medically) and questions do need to be asked about organ transplant practice and ethics from time to time.
This article wreaks of fear-mongering, but I don't see many disadvantages to just letting your family/partner/loved ones that you're cool with your organs being donated, rather than carrying a card. I suppose the only downside is the possibility of a mortal injury somewhere where your loved ones couldn't be contacted quickly enough, but for most people that would be extremely unlikely.
> but I don't see many disadvantages to just letting your family/partner/loved ones that you're cool with your organs being donated, rather than carrying a card.
Paradoxical as it may sound, loved ones are not always the most reliable individuals to carry out your wishes in these circumstances. They often, understandably, have trouble letting letting go and can't always be counted on to prioritize your wishes over their own.
Either way, you've got to trust someone, since you definitely won't be awake to make the decision yourself, and probably not around to see the outcome. Of course, I'm sure you can also draw up legal documents expressing your wishes to donate, and then tell your loved ones about it. Sure, looking up your will may take too long for the donation process, but hopefully the existence of the documents would help make your loved ones more reliable if you don't think you can trust them.
My selfish 2 cents. Let's say there is a 1 in 1000 chance the doctor is wrong. (or even 1 in 50) I will live better knowing my death saves 3.3 lives - well enough to take the risk. Organ donorship is the easiest way to save life outside of giving blood.
From an economics standpoint I'd like to sell my organs. From a morality standpoint, the article is disturbing, but you can still have my parts when I'm done with them.
I like to believe I own myself. I am not interested in any legal procedure where an official of the medical establishment can declare my personal ownership no longer valid and harvest 2 million dollars revenue from my still warm body. The couldn't do it with my car and it is wrong to do it with my corpse.
The day my family receives a life insurance style settlement for my death I will consider it. But not if you cut my people out of the deal.
I'm not familiar with the procedures, but it sounds like the author's saying in the vast majority of cases the organs can't be harvested because of lung or heart failure, which deteriorates the organs. The implication being that most organ harvests occur on that 1%. Ambiguous, to say the least
Because "without it, you will die" is an amazingly effective motivator.
Someone I know recently had a double lung transplant. Even with insurance, employer support, and many donations from a large community supporting, he was told that a) the procedure would cost approximately $1-1.1M, and b) that a downpayment in the order of $400,000 would have to be received PRIOR to approval being given for the procedure to go ahead. His insurance? Would only cover $350,000, after the procedure.
I'm not saying that there haven't been cases where doctors have been overzealous in harvesting organs, but most doctors are much more committed to keeping a patient alive than sending them out for harvest.