Post: #1

7 years ago, almost to the day, I was the recipient of a double transplant (Heart/Liver). At the time, it was only the 3rd such procedure performed at this particular hospital (one of the countries most prestigious transplant facilities)

From where I sit today, my life has been totally transformed and I'm eternally thankful to my donor and his family. Having the value of hindsight, I can see the full trajectory of my journey. The clinical term for my former condition was Cardiomiopathy (enlarged heart) and I had essentially lived with it most of my life. I had only became aware of it in my mid-20's. Fortunately, my age and relative prior 'good' health contributed to my candidacy in terms of receiving the donation.

Reflecting on things, it almost feel like it was a dream. I went from being an active, energetic basketball junkie and musician, to a lethargic, recliner bound young man seemingly overnight. Truth is, the condition had reared it's head repeatedly and I had willfully ignored the signs. Needless to say, I have a new appreciation for the donation process and those individuals who literally give of themselves for the betterment of others.

It's true - your outlook and perspective on your purpose as a man changes. While I waited for at home for "the call" with a IV fixated in my arm, I had nothing but time to reflect. Now almost a decade later, every day is lived like it may be last because I know full well what the edge looks like. As a small token of my gratitude, I try to pay it forward through volunteering as a spokesman for the Gift of Hope.

Anyone donors or recipients among us?

Post: #2

I'm an organ donor.

My grandfather died of a stroke in his early 60's: almost never drank, never smoked, built like a tank. Died pulling Christmas trees out of his pick-up that were for poor families at his church. His eyes, liver, heart, skin, etc were all donated and benefited many people.

I think it should be against the law to NOT be a donor. Unless there is some religious objection.

For example in shit holes like China: Even with all these Han Chinese people who all share the same genes making accepting of donated organs easy as hell, NO ONE donates organs and as a result if you need an organ, you are essentially a dead person walking.

Post: #3

I'm an organ donor. As long as I'm given full treatment in case of any emergencies, once I'm gone, use whatever you can. No matter what you believe in, you can't take it with you.

Post: #4

Organ Donor here too

Post: #5

Thanks for sharing your story.

I think if someone elects not to be an organ donor, they shouldn't be able to be a recipient.

Post: #6

Do hospitals make a lot of money from donated organs?

Edit - balls, making it law that you should donate logically means you don't own the right to your own body. That's a very dangerous proposal.

Post: #7

That's a good question

Suppose I should research that a bit, I agree donation shouldn't be mandatory besides you can imagine the yet undetermined damaged organs of potential donors out there due to prescription drugs, illicit drugs and other substances folk are privy to behind closed doors.

My focus has been in going into minority communities where the donation rate lags behind the national average

Post: #8

Donor. I won't need it when I'm gone.

Post: #9

Donor too, I wish I could specify who gets my organs though. I was disgusted that Steve Jobs got a liver transplant while he had pancreatic cancer instead of someone who would have used it longer.

Post: #10

I strongly feel that anyone who is not registered as an organ donor should be completely ineligible to receive a transplanted organ.

Post: #11

Another organ donor here. I don't see why anyone would not want to donate.

Post: #12

Steve Jobs had the rare subtype of pancreatic CA that was survivable. His arbitrage of the donor list was simple and is done by many (ie looming at which states are best, listing with multiple states) he died because he delayed his care because he thought he could cure himself with alternative therapies.

Look into the complrx Israeli systems of how high you are on the list based on what you and your family sign up to donate as Organ donors

Hospitals do make a lot of money on transplants

Post: #13

I thought they might, and as long as a beneficiary of my choosing isn't compensated, I won't be letting my organs go.

Post: #14

That's actually a really interesting suggestion. What if you genuinely could get a beneficiary compensated. Though I wonder if it could lead to a slippery slope --- for example really desperate people committing suicide so their family members have money. This is assuming the dollar amount of all your organs is substantial.

An opt-out system rather than an opt-in system would probably increase donor rates.

Another idea: what if your healthcare insurance cost was lower if you registered (with the insurance company) as a donor? I bet insurance companies can do cost-benefit analysis and discover that paying medical bills for people who are waiting for a transplant is less costly than giving all donors a discount. I wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies can save millions of dollars. Though I may be wrong and it might need a government subsidy to work.

Post: #15

Interesting. Just make sure to leave the government of the mix

Those bastards would probably invent and auction system where vital organs would go to the highest bidder

With good ole' Uncle Sam getting a kickback of course

Post: #16

Liver transplant recipient checking in. Celebrating 9 years with my new liver in February.

Wow, a heart and a liver. That's something serious. Glad to hear you're doing well, and that you've managed to maintain a positive outlook through it all.

As for me, I'd say that last 9 years have been an unmitigated disaster on most fronts. I mean, if there's an appropriate path a man should take to overcome depression, I did the complete opposite of that. I was broken teenager/man, man. I gave up on myself and am trying to claw my way out of that hole as we speak. I know what my goals in life are, just gotta keep grinding. Easier said than done, but it's now or never.

Post: #17

I'm a registered donor too. I agree that if you're not willing to play the game by signing up, you shouldn't have as much chance to benefit from it.

I'm not sure about making it mandatory by law is the answer, but I think opt out would be a better system. Out of curiosity if it was law, why would you give people who's religion it is an out? Bit of a side track, but why do religious beliefs always get a pass, even above laws?

Post: #18

(01-02-2015 05:15 PM)Seadog Wrote:  I'm a registered donor too. I agree that if you're not willing to play the game by signing up, you shouldn't have as much chance to benefit from it.

I'm not sure about making it mandatory by law is the answer, but I think opt out would be a better system. Out of curiosity if it was law, why would you give people who's religion it is an out? Bit of a side track, but why do religious beliefs always get a pass, even above laws?

Because politicians can't win elections if they piss off the religious. In reality, laws are often formed not based on logic but beliefs. For example, I don't know if you can argue logically for a universal healthcare system. You can definitely do it from a belief point of view ('affordable healthcare is a human right that the government should provide'). For most religious people, the law of God (their beliefs) supersedes any logic and their elected officials better accommodate that.

This is also why most governments will unlikely implement a policy of 'if you don't opt in, you don't get organs yourself'. I agree this would be the most fair system. But this means we would be holding people accountable for their choices (or lack thereof) and in our modern societies we believe in second chances. More importantly, as a society, we also belief in the sanctity of life so we're not going to let a guy die because he never signed up to be an organ donor.

Post: #19

(01-02-2015 06:08 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Because politicians can't win elections if they piss off the religious. In reality, laws are often formed not based on logic but beliefs. For example, I don't know if you can argue logically for a universal healthcare system. You can definitely do it from a belief point of view ('affordable healthcare is a human right that the government should provide'). For most religious people, the law of God (their beliefs) supersedes any logic and their elected officials better accommodate that.

This is also why most governments will unlikely implement a policy of 'if you don't opt in, you don't get organs yourself'. I agree this would be the most fair system. But this means we would be holding people accountable for their choices (or lack thereof) and in our modern societies we believe in second chances. More importantly, as a society, we also belief in the sanctity of life so we're not going to let a guy die because he never signed up to be an organ donor.

Unless you want to repeal the 1986 EMTALA, universal healthcare is logical in the USA. I don't believe in a sky wizard, and I'm not liberal/bleeding heart, I just hate waste and inefficiency.
Since everyone has the right to be treated in the ER regardless of their ability to pay, it makes sense to give people at least some sort of universal access to preventative and primary care, which is significantly cheaper than ER care, and which may help correct small illnesses or problems before they become serious or chronic (ie expensive).
As for no registration as a donor no right to a transplant, its fairness in my point of view, and a way to ensure a healthy supply of organs without opening up an auction system. At the very least not signing up to be an organ donor should knock you down to the very bottom of the priority list for transplants. Below chronic alcoholics.

Post: #20

I wonder if doctors can do penis transplants (?). Imagine dying tomorrow and being able to give the gift of banging to some poor guy victim of an accident. You'd be dead and yet still racking up notches.

Post: #21

Alright, I'll concede that's a very fair point about not pissing those people off. People who believe in anything, regardless of it being true, false, logical, or fairytale to the point they're ready to die for it can be very dangerous. But you also raise an interesting point about belief vs. logic. Really it all boils down to beliefs doesn't it? In nature the strong eat the weak. Does it seem logical that the weak and dumb should be slaves to the powerful and rich? A belief that everyone should have access to healthcare is no different than a belief that all people should have fundamental rights like protection of property and not to be owned.

I think the best they could hope for realistically is an opt-out system. I read a book recently called "Thinking Fast and slow" and they showed how neighbouring countries in Europe had different rates of people signed up by a factor of like 5-10, purely based on the opt-in vs opt-out.

Very interesting book by the way, basically talks about the slow/logical vs fast/emotional parts of the brain, and how by priming people, framing things, or phrasing the same ideas differently, you can get diametrically different responses.

Post: #22

Registered donor here also. Feel free to dig in when I'm dead.

Post: #23

(01-02-2015 06:24 PM)VolandoVengoVolandoVoy Wrote:  

(01-02-2015 06:08 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  Because politicians can't win elections if they piss off the religious. In reality, laws are often formed not based on logic but beliefs. For example, I don't know if you can argue logically for a universal healthcare system. You can definitely do it from a belief point of view ('affordable healthcare is a human right that the government should provide'). For most religious people, the law of God (their beliefs) supersedes any logic and their elected officials better accommodate that.

This is also why most governments will unlikely implement a policy of 'if you don't opt in, you don't get organs yourself'. I agree this would be the most fair system. But this means we would be holding people accountable for their choices (or lack thereof) and in our modern societies we believe in second chances. More importantly, as a society, we also belief in the sanctity of life so we're not going to let a guy die because he never signed up to be an organ donor.

Unless you want to repeal the 1986 EMTALA, universal healthcare is logical in the USA. I don't believe in a sky wizard, and I'm not liberal/bleeding heart, I just hate waste and inefficiency.
Since everyone has the right to be treated in the ER regardless of their ability to pay, it makes sense to give people at least some sort of universal access to preventative and primary care, which is significantly cheaper than ER care, and which may help correct small illnesses or problems before they become serious or chronic (ie expensive).
As for no registration as a donor no right to a transplant, its fairness in my point of view, and a way to ensure a healthy supply of organs without opening up an auction system. At the very least not signing up to be an organ donor should knock you down to the very bottom of the priority list for transplants. Below chronic alcoholics.

Kinda going off-topic here. But let me first start off by saying that I think more affordable access to healthcare and universal healthcare is the way to go. I don't disagree with that. But I didn't mean you can't physically make a logical argument. I meant in practice it does not work well because the vast majority of people have their pre-conceived notions and they will not budge. So you have to take their beliefs into account and work with those. Sorry if I didn't explain that well, but as Seadog said, it all boils down to what you belief.

Post: #24

(01-02-2015 07:11 PM)Seadog Wrote:  Alright, I'll concede that's a very fair point about not pissing those people off. People who believe in anything, regardless of it being true, false, logical, or fairytale to the point they're ready to die for it can be very dangerous. But you also raise an interesting point about belief vs. logic. Really it all boils down to beliefs doesn't it? In nature the strong eat the weak. Does it seem logical that the weak and dumb should be slaves to the powerful and rich? A belief that everyone should have access to healthcare is no different than a belief that all people should have fundamental rights like protection of property and not to be owned.

I think the best they could hope for realistically is an opt-out system. I read a book recently called "Thinking Fast and slow" and they showed how neighbouring countries in Europe had different rates of people signed up by a factor of like 5-10, purely based on the opt-in vs opt-out.

Very interesting book by the way, basically talks about the slow/logical vs fast/emotional parts of the brain, and how by priming people, framing things, or phrasing the same ideas differently, you can get diametrically different responses.

Ah thanks for reminding me. I read Daniel Kahnemann's book a few years back. I've forgotten that's where I first heard about how much more effective opt-out systems are. Highly recommended book!

Post: #25

I was always opposed to organ donation, mainly because of the common myths around it (medical personnel less likely to try and keep you alive, etc.) but I spent some time volunteering in a Level 1 Trauma ICU. Getting to see the impact of it all first hand really changed my attitude about it all.

So when I added my motorcycle endorsement to my license, I made sure to become a registered organ donor.