Organ Donation

[ FOLLOW THE ORIGINAL THREAD HERE ]

Opening statement by Sevendarks:

I understand America's policy of no compensation so that a person doesnt have a better chance to get an organ simply because he has more money. However.. this policy(like all artificial price controls) has led to a severe SHORTAGE of transplantable organs in the US.

Well, Darks, it kinda got me irritated too.

I'm not sure how the people in other countries feel about this issue, but in my country, I don't think compensation is going to increase the number of donors or the supply of transplantable organs. This is because of the public mentality about death, and invasion/desecration of the corpse (which is one of the most horrifying things possible in the minds of people). I find that a lot of people tend to view the organ donation scheme with as much horror and dread as, say, decapitation. I mean, when I signed up as an (cadaveric) organ donor, you should've seen the amount of protest my mum put up. (The same, I believe, goes with Tycho's mum)

Happily, the number of donors has gone up (especially among the younger generation) thanks to public awareness campaigns, perpetuated in my university by my college's Gift of Life campaign. So I think that to a certain extent, compensation isn't going to solve the shortage problem in a society that is mired in tradition; it's education of the masses.

[Anyway, what do I need my organs for after I'm dead? Or, for that matter, my body. I'd rather be useful after life, than be stuck in a box in the ground to rot. It's going to be some time before I tell my family that I'm donating my body for plastination, though! ]

I do agree with you about how availability of organs should NOT depend on how much money a person has. I'm ambivalent about the whole live donor-specifying-recipient thing, though, because of the whole genetics-and-compatibility thing. Personally, if a close, beloved member of my family was plagued with a horrible disease and would die if they didn't receive a lung/kidney, I would willingly donate mine if we were genetically compatible. Not because of the whole family thing (as in, one being willing to help only one's family) but because it's a (genetically) reasonable thing to do - if they were to wait for an organ to become available at the hospital, it might take next to forever, and even then, the organ might not be wholly compatible, and then the medical staff would have to subject the said member to a barrage of immunosuppressive drugs (which would increase the person's vulnerability to infection setting in), and even then there would be the possibility of rejection years down the road. Of course, this is a purely theoretical argument, because I am not genetically compatible with anybody in my family, or for that matter, anybody I know. Hell, I can't even donate blood to any of them, much less organs, so mine would go on public domain after I'm dead (and I wouldn't mind).

Sevendarks wrote:

I disagree with your opinion of compensation making a significant impact on donors in the USA.

Sure people not being violated even after death is an issue. There are plenty of cultures/religions/factions/sects where a mutilated body prevents some sort of "passage". The fervent believers are NOT going to donate no matter what financial incentive you give them or their families.

The issue is whether we can get someone who is more or less ambivelant to dontate organs. You dont know how many people I know who havent bothered to check the donate organs box on their drivers license.. Theoretically they think its the right thing to do but they somehow never get around to spend the 3 minutes filling out the info. If I badger them for a couple of minutes they fill it out because it is easier to do so instead of arguing. Thats how little they feel one way or the other. I bet we could solve our organ shortage issue in the usa by simply saying that people agree to donate by default but could opt out by filling out the 3 lines. Think about it, we lose 50,000 per year just to auto accidents. Not to mention all the natural deaths.

There are whole villages in india(and I am sure many third world countries) that the people there sell one particular organ while they are living(I am the son of 2 doctors(most of my relatives too) and I dont know what organ that is .. kidneys maybe???)

the problem is incentives.. donors face no benefit on the one hand(except some vague theory of social wellbeing) vs some minor or possibly major potential downside. lets look at it another way.

As things stand, there is no upside for a person to donate his organs. There is potentialy major(though unlikely) downside if he does(religious, thought of someone hacking off body parts etc.)

IF there was compensation, it would tip the equation for some people. We only need a small fraction to make a differance.

sevendarks wrote:

I disagree with your opinion of compensation making a significant impact on donors in the USA.

Darks, my discussion was about the situation in my own country, Malaysia, and not the United States. (Please refer to my above post again) As far as I'm concerned, what I've said is true of this country, whose older generation is still very much rooted in tradition. Money isn't going to make these people act against their taboos, but education might.

Sevendarks wrote:

As far as Malaysia/muslims and organ transplants are concerned, I would have to agree with you. I read the part about it appying to your country, I guess I didnt realize that itwas malaysia. For some reason I thought you were from an Eastern European country.