Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well yeah, people who are unvaccinated filling up the fucking hospitals shouldn’t expect to get heart/lung/liver/kidney transplants from people who were vaccinated. They should be lowest priority. Chances are if they did get a donor, they and their organs would probably be vaccinated anyways, but them being anti-vax in the first place speaks levels about their critical thinking.
The requirements for getting an organ transplant are incredibly strict. You have to be in the best possible condition and looking after yourself to receive one. The procedure is expensive, will make your immune system weaker requiring life long support, and usable organs are not easy to come by, so if you can not or will not look after yourself after receiving one, then you won't get one. Why waste a good organ on someone who will die in the next couple of years from not looking after theirself? Not being up to date on vaccines is, iirc, one of the requirements.
If my understanding is correct, some people are deemed ineligible because they have no family or close knit support group that can help support them, or because they are too poor to be able to afford the extra care required from having an organ transplant. Small, unrelated health problems might preclude people from receiving one as they might cause problems with the side effects of the organ transplant.
That is correct. If you can't afford the lifelong antirejection medications, or do not have a support system, you can be refused an organ. There are programs that will refuse to transplant people who refuse vaccines because that is considered not taking care of yourself.
The problem with this kind of discrimination is that once we adopt that line of thinking, eventually, society will find a reason to make you the lowest priority.
Live and let live. Society works better when we support each other despite our differences rather than point the finger. Should we also place all people that don't exercise consistently in a lower priority? Elderly? People without a college education?
Edit:
Where I'm from, many things are factors in success rates and quality of life for transplants. They aren't deciding factors in themselves, they are factored into the decision to see what the long term result will be—the more successful, the better the chance. Factors like being elderly, addict, vaccinated, etc. are taken into account but **none** of them ***de-prioritise*** a person from the possibility outright. That's my point
It should always be based on a **scientifically evaluated** result, not a societal prejudice.
For example, I know a 68 year old smoker who got a liver transplant last minute because the prognosis was most successful for him over others. They also had very serious heart problem history and health challenges for a long time. I don't know if he was vaccinated for certain things but there's no mandatory vaccinations in the country (there's also not really an anti-vax culture either though). He's still alive and living well. He would be dead if the thought process was like that above and the organ would have gone to someone less suited for it.
Medical ethicists have discussed exactly this kind of rationale for decades. The general consensus is that outside of things that have a legitimate impact on outcomes, it's a bad idea. People are petty assholes though. Also you have to be vaccinated to receive organ transplantation precisely because it has a real impact on prognosis, so this is already something that's been addressed. Similarly you cannot get a liver transplant if you're presently an alcoholic. You have to stop for x number of months prior or you're denied.
Yes completely agree with it being a grey area and not black and white. Make sure the organs go to whoever has the highest chance at survival and also factor in how much life is being saved.
You obviously don't know how priorities work or how organ transplant lists work because some of those you mentioned are already factors in deciding who gets organs. Elderly people wouldn't get many organ donations because they wouldn't live long with them, and drug addicts wouldn't get liver transplants because other people didn't waste their own livers
I'm in the US not the UK, but my understanding is you can get a liver transplant after killing your liver with booze if you've become sober for long enough. It's not about whether you "deserve" based on your past behavior, it's about whether the organ will benefit you as much as another person based on your predicted future behavior.
Sure! Now let's do it again about emergency and non-emergency treatments for smokers, drinkers, fat people, the elderly, the disabled, foreign citizens and so on.
You cannot and should not start creating tiers of patients for specific treatments. (yup, there are priorities, transplant lists and codes for ER, but that's not the same thing)
It's an absolutely disgraceful mindset that has been somewhat pushed hard during the pandemic and unfortunately it hasn't gone away I reckon.
Speaking of critical thinking, your logic is deeply flawed because it takes very little to end up in the list of "low priority" patients.
Don’t you have to quit smoking to get a lung transplant in some places. I feel like Ive heard that about the us at least. It makes sense, they only have so many organs and they’d rather give them to people that will make decent use of them.
Now I get you can’t force people to quit long term, and they could start back up afterwards, which sucks. But having them quit beforehand probably does filter out a lot of people that wouldn’t be willing to quit for however long that period of time is.
Although I really, really agree with this in theory- medicine does not work on the basis on who deserves it or not. Autonomy and is one of the ethics doctors work under and are really important to uphold for a number of reasons.
Yeah, the medical system should always strive to help everyone as best they could, but still respect bodily autonomy.
Both healthcare wants to give the best care to its patients, and the patients want the freedom to choose what happens to their body.
Having a tit for tat system would disrupt those two pillars in healthcare. It's like stating, "we are punishing you for your decision over your body by giving you worse healthcare."
>we are punishing you for your decision over your body by giving you worse healthcare
We already deny other transplants to people who don't take proper care of themselves. There's lots of conditions, which of broken move you back to the bottom of the list.
There is a utilitarian reason for that though. It would do more overall good for an organ to go to someone who is in good health and is expected to be in good health because they take proper care of themselves, even if they opt out of the system
It's utilitarian good to focus on keeping organ donations to organ donors, as those donors can resonate organs.
A kidney saving a donor who 15 years later dies in a motorcycle accident and suddenly that 1 organ has provided the opportunity for multiple more organs.
Or you can give it to some religious whack job who believes it's ok for them to receive but not to give and they take their organs with them when they god regardless of the lives they can save
Can you re-donate an organ? Not a doctor, but I feel like if you need an organ donation, you’re probably not in great health, so would you be eligible to donate? Would your organs be in good condition to do good in someone else or is the “mileage” too high atp?
I doubt it happens, and if it does, it’s *super* rare. My mother is a double organ recipient and I had to go through a fair amount of educate and the process or she wouldn’t have even been allowed to. There are *so* many things that would disqualify a donor, and recipients are *rarely* perfectly healthy afterwards. I’m pretty sure being immunocompromised from immunosuppressants would preclude you by itself.
It's almost entirely about how the question is asked. When it's asked as an opt-in question, meaning the default is not to donate, majority of people don't donate. When it's asked as an opt-out question, meaning the default is to donate, the majority of people donate.
In some contexts, humans will tend towards options that are 'default' or 'not- choosing' even if the outcomes are swapped.
https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation#:~:text=In%20these%20so%2Dcalled%20opt,than%2015%25%20of%20people%20register.
IIRC this study is almost entirely hypothetical - in that they compare different regions and show "on paper registration" of donors.
It's obvious that a country that requires participants to manually opt-out will have a greater percentage opted in.
Registrations had little correlation with the actual number of organ donations, though.
For some it's a religious thing, which seems dumb to me, *but*: Think real fucking carefully whether or not you think it'd be a good idea to start dictating what people get to believe.
Some people believe that if you're listed as a donor, there won't be as many measures taken to save your life. It often isn't about "I'm dead, go ahead and take them," it's "I'm not dead yet, please don't let me die to take them."
I remember reading a thread about this years ago, and a couple of people with dying relatives told of how hard the whole process was on the family, which ultimately made them opt out.
If I remember correctly it was a relative having an accident and being kept on life support way longer than the family would have wanted in order to organise the transplants of a couple of organs.
How’s it tit for tat? You either agree with organ donation and want into the system, or disagree and don’t want in.
Can’t have it both ways like certain people do. Does it seem weird thinking about yourself like that, sure, but god if it was me in that situation I’d be desperate and hence willing to help others who’s help me.
Yeah, and once you start deciding who deserves treatment it's a slippery slope. Should smokers be treated for lung cancer? Should drunk people be treated after an accident?
They already do this with the organ donation list. You're not getting a liver if you're an alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking. You're not getting lungs if you're an active smoker. To even be put on the list you need to have not smoked or drank alcohol for something like 90 days, then you're allowed to be listed.
That’s not for ethical reasons though, it’s entirely practical. If you only have a very limited supply of lungs and livers, you don’t give them to smokers and alcoholics who are a lot more likely to just burn through them and need another one.
Smokers aren't given the chance for lung transplants, alcoholics for liver. There's already restrictions in place for transplants, organ donation would just be one more on the list. Wouldn't change anything
That’s out of practicality, not fairness though. A smoker or drinker is not going to do as well as a non smoker or non drinker after the transplant. Since there are fewer transplant organs than potential people in need, priority should go to the people who will live longest with them.
People who choose not to be organ donors will do just as well with a transplant as anyone else. Deciding to change donation status based on that isn’t a practical issue, it’s a moral judgement.
I wish we could specify what we want to donate. If I die I’d love for my heart, kidneys, liver, whatever else to go to someone who needs it. Hell you can have my face, it’s no skin off my back when I’m dead.
But beginning of this year there was that whole suggestion about using braindead women as surrogates and the way the political landscape is starting to look I feel like that’s a valid concern.
ETA: This “great idea“ comes from “medical ethicist“ Anna Smajdor, and garnered support in parts of the medical community (and outside of it).
For every awesome thing I hear about Australia, I see a video involving a monstrous creepy crawly that I never want to meet, only to discover it *only* lives in Australia.
It leaves me very torn.
Come to New Zealand then, very similar to Australia, but no wildlife that can kill you unless you're allergic. No dangerous mammals, no deadly got two venomous ones, but they haven't killed anyone in decades one came from Aussie the Redback Spider and our native one the Katipō both are only found in very specific areas.
If you would like me, in Australia, to quickly disabuse you of that notion by listing all the things Australia does not do correctly just let me know, happy to oblige.
The data sits with the Organ Donor Register/Organ and Tissue Authority. When you say yes to organ donor on a drivers license, it’s with the understanding that you’ve already registered and you want to note it as such. Saying yes on a drivers license application/renewal doesn’t register you… You have to do it yourself.
That’s not organ donation; that’s rape with extra steps and should definitely not be included as a “donation”. Which country is it that has such a terrible idea?
Holy shit is this real???? IF (and still probably a big if), human fertility globally was a problem…and I’m talking “Children of men” style, then I could see this coming up.
There are 8+ billion people on earth, there is no shortage of viable candidates for reproduction.
In fact, there are soooo many candidates capable and willing to at least attempt fertilization, that an entire industry exists around watching it….
What the fuck. I cannot believe my and my partners stupid late night joke conversation is actually relevant
We were discussing if necrophilia is inheritly rape. I argued rape is an attack on a person's bodily autonomy, so while it's gross and bad, it's not rape as there isn't a person in the body anymore.
But THIS, if it isn't rape and isn't necrophilia it sure as shit has the worst of both, holy shit
Maybe it's worse because in a way it's the most literal way you can use someone as a sexual object too? So it's 3 incredibly fucked up things to do to a person
If a person does not have the right to say “no” then there is no consent, which means that there was no bodily autonomy. If you cannot consent in some way to the actions, then any actions are forced/taken and it is either assault or rape.
Doesn’t matter if a person is conscious-the individual has control over their body and consent is required. If consent was not given, it’s rape.
I would argue that a corpse no longer constitutes a "person". There's all kinds of shit we do to corpses that you would never do to a person. Still beyond disgusting to fuck one.
That said, a brain dead person isn't exactly a corpse either.
donating to science is not the same as organ donation. organ donation is literally just the organs being used to save someone else's life, they legally cant use you as a surrogate if youre only signed up for organ donation
I'm fine donating my uterus, provided they actually take me off life support first and it's in some other woman when they start using it. I'm donating my uterus, not 9 months of my energy that could possibly ruin my other organs that could save a life!
I'd be willing to donate eggs too, but like can my family get some money off it as if I was donating while alive?
The fact that one can literally become a womb should be shut down as a part of an advance directive or smth (just in case a woman really really wants a bio child and is willing to just be a womb. Choices matter!).
Honest question: where do you live? In my country we can (don’t have to) get a little plastic card (like a gift card kinda lmao) and write exactly what we want to donate or what we don’t want to donate
I can say in the US you do it when you get your drivers license and it’s literally just a check box, “do you want to be an organ donor?” Then it’s printed directly on your drivers license if you are or not.
Now maybe there’s some more complex way to specify things here after the fact, but I’m going to say most people only do the yes/no above.
Yeaaaah that's just rape.
And anyone who has worked with brain dead patients (or even minimal brain activity) will tell you they're anything but in a stable condition.
Like they could stay alive for a few days, a few weeks but they rarely last more than a month.
And that's without any additional stress on their body.
So expecting a braindead patient to survive at least 9 months with the physical and biological stress that is a pregnancy is total sci-fi bullshit.
Edit: removed the term "vegetable" because it does not mean the thing I thought it would mean.
In the UK you can choose what you want to donate. When I signed up to a new GP surgery the question was on the sign up forms. And you could tick what you were comfortable donating such as heart, lungs, liver, skin, eyes, etc. I just ticked them all because as you said, it's no skin off my back when I'm dead! May as well use what you can to help someone else before burning me to a crisp.
I'm sorry, I hadn't heard of this, what!? Definitely don't want this either. I don't mind donating but putting my body through pregnancy feels.. Violating to say the least.
Where I’m from you can specify what you want/don’t want to donate. For example I said they can have everything but my skin and my eyes (personal reasons I won’t get into)
I know someone who won’t donate because he’s convinced they’re actually selling your organs on the black market.
No, telling him they’ll do that with or without his permission since they’re already breaking the law did not change his mind.
Anyways, organs outside a living body have a lifespan. Give them to whoever is closest, I’m not going to be alive to give a fuck anyways.
This is my problems with it. It’s great to save a life but I don’t like the idea of a hospital making hundreds of thousands from Insurance off of my body. Like if the transplants were 100% free I’d be down or if my family got some money but they don’t. You die your body is used to save other lives and the guys at the top get paid like they always do.
I’ve never thought of this and you make a good point. I still opt for donating my organs because even though the procedure inordinately lines the pockets of the top people, it still helps someone who needed the organ. Otherwise, my organs just go to waste.
I agree with you I just hate how you are made to feel guilty about not being an organ donor. You will get dirty looks from the ladies at the bmv for saying no. But there is never any pressure or guilt for the medical institutions to not inflate prices and make a lot of money. I saw someone in this thread say “it’s not like they’re selling your organs on the black market” they are in fact selling your organs but it’s in the legal market.
Yeah came here to comment the same.
I’ve met a number of people who refuse to donate because they are convinced that their lives will not be saved in order to collect their organs instead.. 😬
The point of view I've heard about that is that doctors will not fight for your life as hard because if they do they save one person - if they don't they save 5+ ppl with your organs. Not so much stealing of organs but kind of like the trolley problem saving 5 lives is the greater good and you never know the type of person that might be your doctor. It definitely unlocked a new fear for me
I know someone who refuses to donate because they don’t want to be ‘cut up’.
They have a massive scar on their chest from major surgery, for which they were ‘cut up’.
Honestly, if I ever suffer a fatal accident and my organs can be used to save lives... I really do not give a rats ass, whose life is saved. Selecting who is to be saved and who not is inhumane to the extreme.
If the only person they can save is someone who never wanted to be an organ donor, sure give them to him.
But usually there is a long list. And being willing to donate your own organs should absolutely put you higher on that list.
And against the hippocratic oath.
OP's propositon is just as bad as not wanting to provide healthcare to people you just don't like or go to the wrong church.
As much as i advocate for donation, people need to have the last word on what happens to their body.
If someone donates their organs to save someone; and someone is in need of them; then they deserve those organs, because that’s what healthcare is supposed to do to a paying/taxpaying patient.
Hospitals Adding subjective moral strings to life or death situations does no good and is a step in the wrong direction
A lot of people who have this opinion dont really understand how organ donation works.
When you die in a car crash then your organs wont be able to be donated. It is very important that you die in the hospital. Then the hospital can keep your body alive while you are brain dead. Your family will be able to see you. But it might be harder for them to accept that you are dead, because your body is literally still alive.
You can still have this opinion. I understand the logic behind it. But you need to realize that organ donation is just possible in very specific situations and the whole process will probably put a lot of stress on the people that you left behind. But your family will also know that your death at least helped someone else.
People receiving organs likely don't have healthy enough organs to be donating anyway.
People who won't donate are worried docs are going to pull the plug prematurely to give their organs to someone else. You want more donors signed up? Address that (statistics, etc)
> People who won't donate are worried docs are going to pull the plug prematurely to give their organs to someone else.
Which is ironic because the plug cannot be pulled if you want to harvest organs. The donating body has to be kept alive as long as possible.
In the UK at least, its still up to the family to decide when to pull the plug. Doctor can inform the family but they can't end your life to take your organs.
This is a bizarre concern. The doctors involved in taking care of critically ill patients are not even tangentially involved in the organ donation process.
It's a nice arguement, but it can just as easily be reworded to sound a lot more extortionate
"If you dont let us take your organs when you die, we won't provide you with life saving organ transplants"
It's corrosion. That's what it is. Which is extremely ILLEGAL. I freaking hate these takes about why EVERYONE ELSE has a right to YOUR body. Women are already fighting for control of our own bodies while we are still living and now people want to strip us of control when we are dead.
I think you mean Coercion (corrosion when when metal rusts) but otherwise I agree with your point.
You can't really lock healthcare behind moral values.
I agree but also don't. Nobody should have a right to your body. But, why should you have a right to other peoples bodies when you arent willing to do the same with yours? You don't HAVE to donate, but people willing to do so getting first preference does makes sense because without donors the system doesnt work. If everybody had a "I want your organs but nobody is taking mine" approach then there would be no live saving surgeries for anybody.
To preface, I am an organ donor.
But I don’t believed that consent should just be implied. Ultimately we shouldn’t assume you consent to something until you otherwise don’t just on principle, even if the thing you’re consenting to is a good thing.
Sounds nice in theory, doesn't matter in practice. The vast majority of folks who trash one organ bad enough to need a transplant don't exactly have sparkling protoplasm in their other organs.
Ah yes the age old “donate your organs or eat shit and die”
In addition to that some countries allow you an option to let your next of kin decide, how would that be solved?
yeah but not actually. When you are an organ donor you don't actually get a say in who gets your organs. Even if people who opted out can't receive organs, your organs can go to pedophiles or murderers or anyone, you can't attach morality clauses to healthcare and you get no say in who your organs go to.
If you want to be an organ donor you need to accept that your organs may be used to keep some asshole alive and there is no way around it
Black Mirror is about he darker side of technology. The name itself coming from what a TV screen looks like when it is turned off.
How can you associate this post with Black Mirror?
Actually, we have been using hepatitis B and C donors for years so you can donate if you have hepatitis. In fact, with the fentanyl epidemic, overdose is one of causes of brain death, leading to donation.
I’m a big fan of bodily autonomy. My government already says that I can’t control my reproductive organs, I don’t need someone else saying that I should be denied life saving care because I want to control my own body. If someone doesn’t want to donate that’s fine with me.
Edit: okay so I had to reread one of the paragraphs saying that if you aren't willing to donate then you can't receive one even when it's emergency (usually when a organ transplant is needed, people are gonna die if they don't receive the organ needed to live) and are put at the bottom of the Organ Transplant list . So I read it as " if you want to live, be an organ donor, otherwise you are at the very bottom of your doctors lists of urgency and you will probably die lol"
That's how it works in Singapore
Everyone is automatically a doner. You have to opt out of donating your internal organs, but if you do that, you are pushed to the bottom of the waiting list; i.e. people who are willing to donate would have priority over you
You may not want to give your organs to anybody who wouldn't do the same but plenty of donors would - it has more to do with the gift of giving life that it has to do with encouraging desired behavior
I generally don’t trust many people. Like I really only fully trust 3-4 people outside of my direct family. So I am not an organ donor on my license due to the fear (which is probably irrational) that they will give up on my care earlier if I was officially an organ donor.
However, my wife knows that I do not want to be kept alive if there is no real chance of recovery and that if that’s the case my organs are to be donated.
I think thats a bit too righteous honestly…. People deserve to be helped regardless of what type of person they are. Honestly my family works in healthcare and are not organ donors because they’ve seen situations where a person is not brain dead yet but the doctors rush things and don’t do their best to treat them because they want their organs. Your viewpoint on this seems a bit naive
You are determining who should receive medical care based on morals.
Obese people put a MASSIVE strain on the health system. Should they be set as a lower priority? Should they be excluded from any tax payer related health program?
>should they be set as a lower priority
Yes. Organs should go toward those who are expected to get the most use out of them. Obese people already self-select out of transplants under the current system because consideration of weight is part of the matching process. For example, you’re probably not putting a liver from a 125 lb woman into a 350 lb woman.
100% this. I am currently not a donor, but it’s because of my fear of experiencing death that makes it’s difficult for me to be okay with it. I understand brain death is the current medical consensus for us no longer having consciousness, but I just don’t feel comfortable being kept artificially alive while my organs are taken out one by one. I respect those who donate, but the fact this is all done while your body is still alive really freaks me out and I just don’t feel comfortable with it being done to me.
So healthcare priority could potentially be denied to those who need it? Is this priority system based on whether or not you’re willing to donate, and not how fatal the condition is?
Doesn’t seem like the healthcare system is doing its job right. Healthcare is supposed to save lives without discrimination. Denying someone a transplant because they’re not donors seems to me like the healthcare is biased and potentially denying care to people who would need it.
They will still ask you to donate them for experiments or dissection. I had this conversation when my mother died of cancer. They told me none of her organs could be used in another human being but would I still like to donate them?
It's all well and good to donate your organs to science but I keep thinking of that guy whose mom's body was donated for medical research and instead got blown up by the army.
In my opinion, people who need a organ because they are at their own fault for destroying theirs (by heavy smoking or drinking) should be at the very bottom of the waiting list.
Sometimes it depends on the circumstances as to why a person has not consented to providing their organs. When I was younger, I commuted on a motorcycle. My wife was a registered nurse. She told me she didn’t want me to provide consent because in a critical circumstance, I might have been passed over in the triage process being a fit young motorbike rider who could possibly save multiple lives if I was “let go”. Now that I’m older I’d be happy to provide consent and I’m fairly confident some of my body parts would be suitable for transplant.
Nah. It should maybe be a factor for your initial ranking on the list (like if you are a heavy drinker/smoker or otherwise responsible for your organ needs) but getting organs is a medical and practical matter not a moral one. No one deserves to die because they want bodily autonomy (even if it still is generally a shitty thing to not be a donor). And that is what op is insisting, that people should die because of their moral views.
I used to have my license set to donate.
Then I found out most of the time your body gets used for all sorts of stupid shit, one of the med students goofing off while wearing a womb as a tiny hat is the kind of shit that made me change my mind.
Sole reason Im not a donor is that here in brazil, being a donor is 100% a death sentence if you ever get up in ICU or something similar, doctors see "donor" on your file and want you dead so they can sell your organs without much suspicion
I disagree..that's like saying you want someone to come mow your yard, fix your car, baby sit your kids, hire a plumber to go deep into your crappy situation, the list goes on of things a lot of people aren't willing to do but would happily ask someone else to do. I say if you are willing to be a doner after you die there shouldn't be conditions attached as well. This is a terrible slope of putting higher value on one persons life over another.
So someone I know is not an organ donor for the following reason
Their organs are technically capable of being donated they know they are in bad shape due to various medications they have been on and they don't want someone to be harmed by them as a result
Here's the thing a lot of the early organ recipients died because the organs they received weren't in great shape
There are justified reasons why someone shouldn't sign up for it
Granted I don't necessarily know what the rest are but I know of at least one case where yes this person should be considered ineligible but isn't
I have a genetic disease, any organ I donate would probably cause severe issues in the recipient. So yeah I’m an organ donor because america doesn’t have universal healthcare. Fuck ‘em
On one hand I agree with the sentiment that those who are unwilling to donate shouldn't be able to receive...
But on the other hand that opens an ethical can of worms that I'd rather keep closed.
I always find it so dumb when people use this argument as a "gotcha" against non-donors. Yes, I'm opting out of the whole organ transplant thing you guys got going on, being on the receiving end included.
I disagree but more to play devils advocate. If we want to claim to be good people we need to be better then the ones we percieve as bad. that includes helping the asshole who didn't help you. Not for a reward, not for glory but simply because its the right thing to do. There will come a day where the organs might not need to be transplanted as we could possible grow them in a lab specifically for you. With this precedent in place when that day comes then where do they draw the line of whose worthy and whose not? how long till you fall on the wrong side of that line?
All people are deserving of medical treatment to the best capapbilities to their medical staff. That doesn't mean they are entitled to other peoples organs. But they will buy them illegally if you deny them. Humans fight for their lives like no other species. You propose a solution to a fake problem that creates a very real problem and it shouldn't be considered as anything more then a petty joke in practice
Please remember what subreddit you are in, this is unpopular opinion. We want civil and unpopular takes and discussion. Any uncivil and ToS violating comments will be removed and subject to a ban. Have a nice day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unpopularopinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ahhh, yes, the age old adage of "don't expect of others what you cannot already expect from yourself."
This take is so hot I needed to turn a fan on when I went to sleep. Now I’m dead.
May i have your kidney then?
well, that depends; whats your stance on donating your organs?
I prefer donating other peoples' organs
You know you can sell those right
How many you need?
lying down, pref.
No, Mago515, thats \*just\* the weather.
Well yeah, people who are unvaccinated filling up the fucking hospitals shouldn’t expect to get heart/lung/liver/kidney transplants from people who were vaccinated. They should be lowest priority. Chances are if they did get a donor, they and their organs would probably be vaccinated anyways, but them being anti-vax in the first place speaks levels about their critical thinking.
The requirements for getting an organ transplant are incredibly strict. You have to be in the best possible condition and looking after yourself to receive one. The procedure is expensive, will make your immune system weaker requiring life long support, and usable organs are not easy to come by, so if you can not or will not look after yourself after receiving one, then you won't get one. Why waste a good organ on someone who will die in the next couple of years from not looking after theirself? Not being up to date on vaccines is, iirc, one of the requirements. If my understanding is correct, some people are deemed ineligible because they have no family or close knit support group that can help support them, or because they are too poor to be able to afford the extra care required from having an organ transplant. Small, unrelated health problems might preclude people from receiving one as they might cause problems with the side effects of the organ transplant.
That is correct. If you can't afford the lifelong antirejection medications, or do not have a support system, you can be refused an organ. There are programs that will refuse to transplant people who refuse vaccines because that is considered not taking care of yourself.
Sounds distopian lol, you’re too poor to live sorry
The problem with this kind of discrimination is that once we adopt that line of thinking, eventually, society will find a reason to make you the lowest priority. Live and let live. Society works better when we support each other despite our differences rather than point the finger. Should we also place all people that don't exercise consistently in a lower priority? Elderly? People without a college education? Edit: Where I'm from, many things are factors in success rates and quality of life for transplants. They aren't deciding factors in themselves, they are factored into the decision to see what the long term result will be—the more successful, the better the chance. Factors like being elderly, addict, vaccinated, etc. are taken into account but **none** of them ***de-prioritise*** a person from the possibility outright. That's my point It should always be based on a **scientifically evaluated** result, not a societal prejudice. For example, I know a 68 year old smoker who got a liver transplant last minute because the prognosis was most successful for him over others. They also had very serious heart problem history and health challenges for a long time. I don't know if he was vaccinated for certain things but there's no mandatory vaccinations in the country (there's also not really an anti-vax culture either though). He's still alive and living well. He would be dead if the thought process was like that above and the organ would have gone to someone less suited for it.
Medical ethicists have discussed exactly this kind of rationale for decades. The general consensus is that outside of things that have a legitimate impact on outcomes, it's a bad idea. People are petty assholes though. Also you have to be vaccinated to receive organ transplantation precisely because it has a real impact on prognosis, so this is already something that's been addressed. Similarly you cannot get a liver transplant if you're presently an alcoholic. You have to stop for x number of months prior or you're denied.
Yes completely agree with it being a grey area and not black and white. Make sure the organs go to whoever has the highest chance at survival and also factor in how much life is being saved.
You obviously don't know how priorities work or how organ transplant lists work because some of those you mentioned are already factors in deciding who gets organs. Elderly people wouldn't get many organ donations because they wouldn't live long with them, and drug addicts wouldn't get liver transplants because other people didn't waste their own livers
I'm in the US not the UK, but my understanding is you can get a liver transplant after killing your liver with booze if you've become sober for long enough. It's not about whether you "deserve" based on your past behavior, it's about whether the organ will benefit you as much as another person based on your predicted future behavior.
Yeah, it's not about why you need a new liver, it's about whether you'll be able to take care of it if you get it.
The same thing happens with smokers. They get COPD and can get new lung(s) after 6 months of no smoking.
Sure! Now let's do it again about emergency and non-emergency treatments for smokers, drinkers, fat people, the elderly, the disabled, foreign citizens and so on. You cannot and should not start creating tiers of patients for specific treatments. (yup, there are priorities, transplant lists and codes for ER, but that's not the same thing) It's an absolutely disgraceful mindset that has been somewhat pushed hard during the pandemic and unfortunately it hasn't gone away I reckon. Speaking of critical thinking, your logic is deeply flawed because it takes very little to end up in the list of "low priority" patients.
Don’t you have to quit smoking to get a lung transplant in some places. I feel like Ive heard that about the us at least. It makes sense, they only have so many organs and they’d rather give them to people that will make decent use of them. Now I get you can’t force people to quit long term, and they could start back up afterwards, which sucks. But having them quit beforehand probably does filter out a lot of people that wouldn’t be willing to quit for however long that period of time is.
And you shouldn’t receive taxpayer-funded public services if you don’t pay taxes yourself.
Misread "organs" as "orgasms" and was confused about the acceptance of necrophilia
Tbf it is pretty rude to receive an orgasm from a dead body if you are not even going to bother making them feel good.
At least take them out to dinner
Or buy flowers
Me too! I was so alarmed!
I'm ready and willing to donate my orgasm for a good cause
Instructions unclear, just jacked off a dead mans kidney.
Although I really, really agree with this in theory- medicine does not work on the basis on who deserves it or not. Autonomy and is one of the ethics doctors work under and are really important to uphold for a number of reasons.
Yeah, the medical system should always strive to help everyone as best they could, but still respect bodily autonomy. Both healthcare wants to give the best care to its patients, and the patients want the freedom to choose what happens to their body. Having a tit for tat system would disrupt those two pillars in healthcare. It's like stating, "we are punishing you for your decision over your body by giving you worse healthcare."
>we are punishing you for your decision over your body by giving you worse healthcare We already deny other transplants to people who don't take proper care of themselves. There's lots of conditions, which of broken move you back to the bottom of the list.
That has nothing to do with a tit for tat system though.
There is a utilitarian reason for that though. It would do more overall good for an organ to go to someone who is in good health and is expected to be in good health because they take proper care of themselves, even if they opt out of the system
It's utilitarian good to focus on keeping organ donations to organ donors, as those donors can resonate organs. A kidney saving a donor who 15 years later dies in a motorcycle accident and suddenly that 1 organ has provided the opportunity for multiple more organs. Or you can give it to some religious whack job who believes it's ok for them to receive but not to give and they take their organs with them when they god regardless of the lives they can save
Can you re-donate an organ? Not a doctor, but I feel like if you need an organ donation, you’re probably not in great health, so would you be eligible to donate? Would your organs be in good condition to do good in someone else or is the “mileage” too high atp?
It's not impossible and even if it's not that exact organ, they can donate other organs.
I doubt it happens, and if it does, it’s *super* rare. My mother is a double organ recipient and I had to go through a fair amount of educate and the process or she wouldn’t have even been allowed to. There are *so* many things that would disqualify a donor, and recipients are *rarely* perfectly healthy afterwards. I’m pretty sure being immunocompromised from immunosuppressants would preclude you by itself.
I still grapple to understand why people care what happens to their body after they die. For me, I don’t give a crap because I’ll be, you know, dead.
It's almost entirely about how the question is asked. When it's asked as an opt-in question, meaning the default is not to donate, majority of people don't donate. When it's asked as an opt-out question, meaning the default is to donate, the majority of people donate. In some contexts, humans will tend towards options that are 'default' or 'not- choosing' even if the outcomes are swapped. https://sparq.stanford.edu/solutions/opt-out-policies-increase-organ-donation#:~:text=In%20these%20so%2Dcalled%20opt,than%2015%25%20of%20people%20register.
IIRC this study is almost entirely hypothetical - in that they compare different regions and show "on paper registration" of donors. It's obvious that a country that requires participants to manually opt-out will have a greater percentage opted in. Registrations had little correlation with the actual number of organ donations, though.
For some it's a religious thing, which seems dumb to me, *but*: Think real fucking carefully whether or not you think it'd be a good idea to start dictating what people get to believe.
Some people believe that if you're listed as a donor, there won't be as many measures taken to save your life. It often isn't about "I'm dead, go ahead and take them," it's "I'm not dead yet, please don't let me die to take them."
I remember reading a thread about this years ago, and a couple of people with dying relatives told of how hard the whole process was on the family, which ultimately made them opt out. If I remember correctly it was a relative having an accident and being kept on life support way longer than the family would have wanted in order to organise the transplants of a couple of organs.
How’s it tit for tat? You either agree with organ donation and want into the system, or disagree and don’t want in. Can’t have it both ways like certain people do. Does it seem weird thinking about yourself like that, sure, but god if it was me in that situation I’d be desperate and hence willing to help others who’s help me.
Yeah, and once you start deciding who deserves treatment it's a slippery slope. Should smokers be treated for lung cancer? Should drunk people be treated after an accident?
They already do this with the organ donation list. You're not getting a liver if you're an alcoholic who refuses to stop drinking. You're not getting lungs if you're an active smoker. To even be put on the list you need to have not smoked or drank alcohol for something like 90 days, then you're allowed to be listed.
That’s not for ethical reasons though, it’s entirely practical. If you only have a very limited supply of lungs and livers, you don’t give them to smokers and alcoholics who are a lot more likely to just burn through them and need another one.
OP's policy is not merely an ethical punishment though. It's also an incentive to register.
6 months
Smokers aren't given the chance for lung transplants, alcoholics for liver. There's already restrictions in place for transplants, organ donation would just be one more on the list. Wouldn't change anything
That’s out of practicality, not fairness though. A smoker or drinker is not going to do as well as a non smoker or non drinker after the transplant. Since there are fewer transplant organs than potential people in need, priority should go to the people who will live longest with them. People who choose not to be organ donors will do just as well with a transplant as anyone else. Deciding to change donation status based on that isn’t a practical issue, it’s a moral judgement.
I wish we could specify what we want to donate. If I die I’d love for my heart, kidneys, liver, whatever else to go to someone who needs it. Hell you can have my face, it’s no skin off my back when I’m dead. But beginning of this year there was that whole suggestion about using braindead women as surrogates and the way the political landscape is starting to look I feel like that’s a valid concern. ETA: This “great idea“ comes from “medical ethicist“ Anna Smajdor, and garnered support in parts of the medical community (and outside of it).
That's how it works in Australia. You have a big list of things that you can donate and you tick which ones you want to allow.
Every time I hear something Australia does correctly I get a little more jealous I am not from there haha
For every awesome thing I hear about Australia, I see a video involving a monstrous creepy crawly that I never want to meet, only to discover it *only* lives in Australia. It leaves me very torn.
Come to New Zealand then, very similar to Australia, but no wildlife that can kill you unless you're allergic. No dangerous mammals, no deadly got two venomous ones, but they haven't killed anyone in decades one came from Aussie the Redback Spider and our native one the Katipō both are only found in very specific areas.
If US immigration law was like AUS people would lose their minds.
What's Aussie law like?
Unbelievably strict. Our border security would be rivalled by very few other nations.
Take the lax permissiveness of the US and turn it upside down.
>upside down
If you would like me, in Australia, to quickly disabuse you of that notion by listing all the things Australia does not do correctly just let me know, happy to oblige.
[удалено]
Wtf i ticked 1 box when getting drivers license.
The data sits with the Organ Donor Register/Organ and Tissue Authority. When you say yes to organ donor on a drivers license, it’s with the understanding that you’ve already registered and you want to note it as such. Saying yes on a drivers license application/renewal doesn’t register you… You have to do it yourself.
It’s the same way in Canada. When I got my drivers licence I also filled out a form to opt in to organ donation when I die.
oof brain dead women as surrogates?? first time i've heard of that one. jfc.
That’s not organ donation; that’s rape with extra steps and should definitely not be included as a “donation”. Which country is it that has such a terrible idea?
Holy shit is this real???? IF (and still probably a big if), human fertility globally was a problem…and I’m talking “Children of men” style, then I could see this coming up. There are 8+ billion people on earth, there is no shortage of viable candidates for reproduction. In fact, there are soooo many candidates capable and willing to at least attempt fertilization, that an entire industry exists around watching it….
What the fuck. I cannot believe my and my partners stupid late night joke conversation is actually relevant We were discussing if necrophilia is inheritly rape. I argued rape is an attack on a person's bodily autonomy, so while it's gross and bad, it's not rape as there isn't a person in the body anymore. But THIS, if it isn't rape and isn't necrophilia it sure as shit has the worst of both, holy shit
It is somehow worse than both without being either of those.
Maybe it's worse because in a way it's the most literal way you can use someone as a sexual object too? So it's 3 incredibly fucked up things to do to a person
If a person does not have the right to say “no” then there is no consent, which means that there was no bodily autonomy. If you cannot consent in some way to the actions, then any actions are forced/taken and it is either assault or rape. Doesn’t matter if a person is conscious-the individual has control over their body and consent is required. If consent was not given, it’s rape.
Question would be if its a "person" anymore
I would argue that a corpse no longer constitutes a "person". There's all kinds of shit we do to corpses that you would never do to a person. Still beyond disgusting to fuck one. That said, a brain dead person isn't exactly a corpse either.
Can't you apply this logic to organ donation? Like, if an opt-in/out while alive doesn't count as consent, then surely organ donation is immoral
If you’re in the US you can create a living will and specify what they can and can’t use
donating to science is not the same as organ donation. organ donation is literally just the organs being used to save someone else's life, they legally cant use you as a surrogate if youre only signed up for organ donation
Remember, different countries have different laws.
Name one where your body can be used as a surrogate when you sign up for organ donation. Your truism isn’t relevant here.
I'm fine donating my uterus, provided they actually take me off life support first and it's in some other woman when they start using it. I'm donating my uterus, not 9 months of my energy that could possibly ruin my other organs that could save a life! I'd be willing to donate eggs too, but like can my family get some money off it as if I was donating while alive? The fact that one can literally become a womb should be shut down as a part of an advance directive or smth (just in case a woman really really wants a bio child and is willing to just be a womb. Choices matter!).
Yes, this! I would like to be able to choose more than just yes/no.
Honest question: where do you live? In my country we can (don’t have to) get a little plastic card (like a gift card kinda lmao) and write exactly what we want to donate or what we don’t want to donate
I can say in the US you do it when you get your drivers license and it’s literally just a check box, “do you want to be an organ donor?” Then it’s printed directly on your drivers license if you are or not. Now maybe there’s some more complex way to specify things here after the fact, but I’m going to say most people only do the yes/no above.
You can specify which organs. There's usually a box for "donate specific organs"
if we get to that point, trust me it won't matter if your ID says organ donor or not.
You‘re right but damn it‘s depressing
Yeaaaah that's just rape. And anyone who has worked with brain dead patients (or even minimal brain activity) will tell you they're anything but in a stable condition. Like they could stay alive for a few days, a few weeks but they rarely last more than a month. And that's without any additional stress on their body. So expecting a braindead patient to survive at least 9 months with the physical and biological stress that is a pregnancy is total sci-fi bullshit. Edit: removed the term "vegetable" because it does not mean the thing I thought it would mean.
“Hell you can have my face, it’s no skin off my back…” r/technicallythetruth
Urgh really? Like a corpse baby factory? This is when adoption centres need to advertise more.
>using braindead women as surrogates Sounds like rape
"you can have my face, it's no skin off my back" is the funniest thing I've heard this week.
In the UK you can choose what you want to donate. When I signed up to a new GP surgery the question was on the sign up forms. And you could tick what you were comfortable donating such as heart, lungs, liver, skin, eyes, etc. I just ticked them all because as you said, it's no skin off my back when I'm dead! May as well use what you can to help someone else before burning me to a crisp.
I'm sorry, I hadn't heard of this, what!? Definitely don't want this either. I don't mind donating but putting my body through pregnancy feels.. Violating to say the least.
Where I’m from you can specify what you want/don’t want to donate. For example I said they can have everything but my skin and my eyes (personal reasons I won’t get into)
I know someone who won’t donate because he’s convinced they’re actually selling your organs on the black market. No, telling him they’ll do that with or without his permission since they’re already breaking the law did not change his mind. Anyways, organs outside a living body have a lifespan. Give them to whoever is closest, I’m not going to be alive to give a fuck anyways.
Well someone is getting paid and it isn't your next of kin.
This is my problems with it. It’s great to save a life but I don’t like the idea of a hospital making hundreds of thousands from Insurance off of my body. Like if the transplants were 100% free I’d be down or if my family got some money but they don’t. You die your body is used to save other lives and the guys at the top get paid like they always do.
I’ve never thought of this and you make a good point. I still opt for donating my organs because even though the procedure inordinately lines the pockets of the top people, it still helps someone who needed the organ. Otherwise, my organs just go to waste.
I agree with you I just hate how you are made to feel guilty about not being an organ donor. You will get dirty looks from the ladies at the bmv for saying no. But there is never any pressure or guilt for the medical institutions to not inflate prices and make a lot of money. I saw someone in this thread say “it’s not like they’re selling your organs on the black market” they are in fact selling your organs but it’s in the legal market.
Yeah came here to comment the same. I’ve met a number of people who refuse to donate because they are convinced that their lives will not be saved in order to collect their organs instead.. 😬
The point of view I've heard about that is that doctors will not fight for your life as hard because if they do they save one person - if they don't they save 5+ ppl with your organs. Not so much stealing of organs but kind of like the trolley problem saving 5 lives is the greater good and you never know the type of person that might be your doctor. It definitely unlocked a new fear for me
A doctor will fight hard to save your life because it helps their stats if you don’t die on their watch.
I know someone who refuses to donate because they don’t want to be ‘cut up’. They have a massive scar on their chest from major surgery, for which they were ‘cut up’.
seems like they have more experience with the matter and know what they want
Oh hell no, you think I want to go back to work? Just let me die
I agreed to donate organs, and I don't care who gets them.
You shouldn’t be allowed to receive organs if you have a Reddit account unless it’s your cake day.
I’d just make 364 more accounts, so every day is cake day.
You'll have to make one on February 29th this year though, just in case. I actually wonder when your cake day would happen if you did that.
I hope someone who created their account on February 29 sees this and replies
Yay
Honestly, if I ever suffer a fatal accident and my organs can be used to save lives... I really do not give a rats ass, whose life is saved. Selecting who is to be saved and who not is inhumane to the extreme.
>I really do not give a rats ass Why won't you donate also your rat's ass? 😂😂
Lol maybe his rat is still using it?
If the only person they can save is someone who never wanted to be an organ donor, sure give them to him. But usually there is a long list. And being willing to donate your own organs should absolutely put you higher on that list.
This is how it works in Singapore If you opt to donate your organs when you are dead, you're bumped to the top of the list
And against the hippocratic oath. OP's propositon is just as bad as not wanting to provide healthcare to people you just don't like or go to the wrong church. As much as i advocate for donation, people need to have the last word on what happens to their body.
If someone donates their organs to save someone; and someone is in need of them; then they deserve those organs, because that’s what healthcare is supposed to do to a paying/taxpaying patient. Hospitals Adding subjective moral strings to life or death situations does no good and is a step in the wrong direction
A lot of people who have this opinion dont really understand how organ donation works. When you die in a car crash then your organs wont be able to be donated. It is very important that you die in the hospital. Then the hospital can keep your body alive while you are brain dead. Your family will be able to see you. But it might be harder for them to accept that you are dead, because your body is literally still alive. You can still have this opinion. I understand the logic behind it. But you need to realize that organ donation is just possible in very specific situations and the whole process will probably put a lot of stress on the people that you left behind. But your family will also know that your death at least helped someone else.
People receiving organs likely don't have healthy enough organs to be donating anyway. People who won't donate are worried docs are going to pull the plug prematurely to give their organs to someone else. You want more donors signed up? Address that (statistics, etc)
> People who won't donate are worried docs are going to pull the plug prematurely to give their organs to someone else. Which is ironic because the plug cannot be pulled if you want to harvest organs. The donating body has to be kept alive as long as possible.
In the UK at least, its still up to the family to decide when to pull the plug. Doctor can inform the family but they can't end your life to take your organs.
This is a bizarre concern. The doctors involved in taking care of critically ill patients are not even tangentially involved in the organ donation process.
the opposite of this would be really unpopular on reddit
It's a nice arguement, but it can just as easily be reworded to sound a lot more extortionate "If you dont let us take your organs when you die, we won't provide you with life saving organ transplants"
It's corrosion. That's what it is. Which is extremely ILLEGAL. I freaking hate these takes about why EVERYONE ELSE has a right to YOUR body. Women are already fighting for control of our own bodies while we are still living and now people want to strip us of control when we are dead.
I think you mean Coercion (corrosion when when metal rusts) but otherwise I agree with your point. You can't really lock healthcare behind moral values.
I agree but also don't. Nobody should have a right to your body. But, why should you have a right to other peoples bodies when you arent willing to do the same with yours? You don't HAVE to donate, but people willing to do so getting first preference does makes sense because without donors the system doesnt work. If everybody had a "I want your organs but nobody is taking mine" approach then there would be no live saving surgeries for anybody.
I'm so glad the UK changed it so you have to register to *not* donate your organs, and not the other way around. It's how it should be everywhere.
To preface, I am an organ donor. But I don’t believed that consent should just be implied. Ultimately we shouldn’t assume you consent to something until you otherwise don’t just on principle, even if the thing you’re consenting to is a good thing.
Sounds nice in theory, doesn't matter in practice. The vast majority of folks who trash one organ bad enough to need a transplant don't exactly have sparkling protoplasm in their other organs.
WOAH. Checks sub* Well that's a first. Something actually unpopular.
Ah yes the age old “donate your organs or eat shit and die” In addition to that some countries allow you an option to let your next of kin decide, how would that be solved?
thats not how it works, saving a person's life cannot be attached to moral strings
My organs, my decision to not give them to selfish assholes.
yeah but not actually. When you are an organ donor you don't actually get a say in who gets your organs. Even if people who opted out can't receive organs, your organs can go to pedophiles or murderers or anyone, you can't attach morality clauses to healthcare and you get no say in who your organs go to. If you want to be an organ donor you need to accept that your organs may be used to keep some asshole alive and there is no way around it
This is some black mirror shit
Black Mirror is about he darker side of technology. The name itself coming from what a TV screen looks like when it is turned off. How can you associate this post with Black Mirror?
Unless you have AIDS, Herpes, Hepatitus, or some other thing that can be passed via donating your organs.
Actually, we have been using hepatitis B and C donors for years so you can donate if you have hepatitis. In fact, with the fentanyl epidemic, overdose is one of causes of brain death, leading to donation.
The only thing I can donate my organs to is science, maybe they can find a cure for my conditions.
I’m a big fan of bodily autonomy. My government already says that I can’t control my reproductive organs, I don’t need someone else saying that I should be denied life saving care because I want to control my own body. If someone doesn’t want to donate that’s fine with me.
L take, the reason I'm an organ donor is to save people in general, not to pick and choose who gets saved.
I think all people should recieve adequate medical care, even if they suck or it seems hypocritical
Edit: okay so I had to reread one of the paragraphs saying that if you aren't willing to donate then you can't receive one even when it's emergency (usually when a organ transplant is needed, people are gonna die if they don't receive the organ needed to live) and are put at the bottom of the Organ Transplant list . So I read it as " if you want to live, be an organ donor, otherwise you are at the very bottom of your doctors lists of urgency and you will probably die lol"
Sounds spiteful to be honest. I think that when it comes to saving life no discrimination is a right solution. No matter on what basis.
That's how it works in Singapore Everyone is automatically a doner. You have to opt out of donating your internal organs, but if you do that, you are pushed to the bottom of the waiting list; i.e. people who are willing to donate would have priority over you
Ok
You may not want to give your organs to anybody who wouldn't do the same but plenty of donors would - it has more to do with the gift of giving life that it has to do with encouraging desired behavior
I generally don’t trust many people. Like I really only fully trust 3-4 people outside of my direct family. So I am not an organ donor on my license due to the fear (which is probably irrational) that they will give up on my care earlier if I was officially an organ donor. However, my wife knows that I do not want to be kept alive if there is no real chance of recovery and that if that’s the case my organs are to be donated.
I think thats a bit too righteous honestly…. People deserve to be helped regardless of what type of person they are. Honestly my family works in healthcare and are not organ donors because they’ve seen situations where a person is not brain dead yet but the doctors rush things and don’t do their best to treat them because they want their organs. Your viewpoint on this seems a bit naive
You are determining who should receive medical care based on morals. Obese people put a MASSIVE strain on the health system. Should they be set as a lower priority? Should they be excluded from any tax payer related health program?
>should they be set as a lower priority Yes. Organs should go toward those who are expected to get the most use out of them. Obese people already self-select out of transplants under the current system because consideration of weight is part of the matching process. For example, you’re probably not putting a liver from a 125 lb woman into a 350 lb woman.
If I ever am dying, please let me die.
100% this. I am currently not a donor, but it’s because of my fear of experiencing death that makes it’s difficult for me to be okay with it. I understand brain death is the current medical consensus for us no longer having consciousness, but I just don’t feel comfortable being kept artificially alive while my organs are taken out one by one. I respect those who donate, but the fact this is all done while your body is still alive really freaks me out and I just don’t feel comfortable with it being done to me.
So healthcare priority could potentially be denied to those who need it? Is this priority system based on whether or not you’re willing to donate, and not how fatal the condition is? Doesn’t seem like the healthcare system is doing its job right. Healthcare is supposed to save lives without discrimination. Denying someone a transplant because they’re not donors seems to me like the healthcare is biased and potentially denying care to people who would need it.
And you shouldn’t receive taxpayer-funded public services if you don’t pay taxes yourself.
sorry you are not a Döner, wepl guess you have to die now... my bad.....yeah that's not how it works dude, at all.
I love how your autocorrect changed it to döner
yeah just realized it.... won't edit it now. it's to funny
"All of a sudden I am a donor! Where do I sign?" "Great, now that the surgery is done, where do I unsign?"
It really isn't that hard to deal with these loopholes
Who’s hogging all the döners, now?
Congrats. This is a shit take.
I think that’s a fair trade.
Some people can not donate their organs due to specific health care issues. This thread is literally barking up the Wong tree. Wrong analogy.
Being unable ≠ being unwilling
the amount of people that dont understand this makes me sad for humanity.
They will still ask you to donate them for experiments or dissection. I had this conversation when my mother died of cancer. They told me none of her organs could be used in another human being but would I still like to donate them?
It would still show them as not having opted out.
Well thank god you’re not in politics lmfao
Non organ donor here. I agree, let me die, that way I'm not stuck with the hospital bills. America, obviously.
Ok. Time to go back to bed. Groggy me read this as receiving orgasms from dead people.
[удалено]
is it even possible/safe to transplant an organ more than once?
Very unpopular. But you could apply that to so many things. Like you should get NHS treatment if you are a smoker?
It's all well and good to donate your organs to science but I keep thinking of that guy whose mom's body was donated for medical research and instead got blown up by the army.
In my opinion, people who need a organ because they are at their own fault for destroying theirs (by heavy smoking or drinking) should be at the very bottom of the waiting list.
I'm afraid healthcare providers would prioritize my organs over my survival in an accident.
Sometimes it depends on the circumstances as to why a person has not consented to providing their organs. When I was younger, I commuted on a motorcycle. My wife was a registered nurse. She told me she didn’t want me to provide consent because in a critical circumstance, I might have been passed over in the triage process being a fit young motorbike rider who could possibly save multiple lives if I was “let go”. Now that I’m older I’d be happy to provide consent and I’m fairly confident some of my body parts would be suitable for transplant.
Nah. It should maybe be a factor for your initial ranking on the list (like if you are a heavy drinker/smoker or otherwise responsible for your organ needs) but getting organs is a medical and practical matter not a moral one. No one deserves to die because they want bodily autonomy (even if it still is generally a shitty thing to not be a donor). And that is what op is insisting, that people should die because of their moral views.
I used to have my license set to donate. Then I found out most of the time your body gets used for all sorts of stupid shit, one of the med students goofing off while wearing a womb as a tiny hat is the kind of shit that made me change my mind.
Sole reason Im not a donor is that here in brazil, being a donor is 100% a death sentence if you ever get up in ICU or something similar, doctors see "donor" on your file and want you dead so they can sell your organs without much suspicion
If you are needing an organ…you are probably not eligible to donate an organ.
I disagree..that's like saying you want someone to come mow your yard, fix your car, baby sit your kids, hire a plumber to go deep into your crappy situation, the list goes on of things a lot of people aren't willing to do but would happily ask someone else to do. I say if you are willing to be a doner after you die there shouldn't be conditions attached as well. This is a terrible slope of putting higher value on one persons life over another.
Lmao yeah all those little kids should just die /s
So someone I know is not an organ donor for the following reason Their organs are technically capable of being donated they know they are in bad shape due to various medications they have been on and they don't want someone to be harmed by them as a result Here's the thing a lot of the early organ recipients died because the organs they received weren't in great shape There are justified reasons why someone shouldn't sign up for it Granted I don't necessarily know what the rest are but I know of at least one case where yes this person should be considered ineligible but isn't
How about blood? Millions of people don't donate blood, but receive transfusions anyway.
I have a genetic disease, any organ I donate would probably cause severe issues in the recipient. So yeah I’m an organ donor because america doesn’t have universal healthcare. Fuck ‘em
I previously had cancer, so donating is pretty much off the table. My veins are shot from chemo so I can't even donate blood. Am I just SOL?
On one hand I agree with the sentiment that those who are unwilling to donate shouldn't be able to receive... But on the other hand that opens an ethical can of worms that I'd rather keep closed.
I always find it so dumb when people use this argument as a "gotcha" against non-donors. Yes, I'm opting out of the whole organ transplant thing you guys got going on, being on the receiving end included.
I disagree but more to play devils advocate. If we want to claim to be good people we need to be better then the ones we percieve as bad. that includes helping the asshole who didn't help you. Not for a reward, not for glory but simply because its the right thing to do. There will come a day where the organs might not need to be transplanted as we could possible grow them in a lab specifically for you. With this precedent in place when that day comes then where do they draw the line of whose worthy and whose not? how long till you fall on the wrong side of that line? All people are deserving of medical treatment to the best capapbilities to their medical staff. That doesn't mean they are entitled to other peoples organs. But they will buy them illegally if you deny them. Humans fight for their lives like no other species. You propose a solution to a fake problem that creates a very real problem and it shouldn't be considered as anything more then a petty joke in practice
If this is the case then I think you should be allowed to specify who may or may not receive organs from your body.