 |
|
 |

 |
vexen | |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
"Funeral Ritual Instinct" by Vexen Crabtree (2002) The Not a Donor Card has long been a good idea. When people die, their healthy organs can be used to save others, unless they carry a card to say they'd rather let others suffer. There is no humane reason to de facto deny others your own healthy organs, once you are dead. There should be European-wide legislation to make all of Europe a donate-by-default region. If peoples' religious or cultural delusions lean them towards social malefaction, then, they can carry a "not a donor" card, to exempt themselves from the moral duty to help others. By allowing these exemptions, the scheme is more likely to be implemented. Then, later, we can remove this exemption. Only religious extremists and confused individuals will oppose it, once the scheme is seen as a success all over Europe, not just in Spain. Tags: burial, cremations, death, funeral, funerals, medicine, morbidity, organ donation, organs
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |

 |

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: vexen |
Date: July 18th, 2007 05:58 pm (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
Death is the most pressing of problems, especially for those who wish to remain alive... there is no greater tragedy than the loss of life.
But once you are dead, your organs can help others live... your spare parts are not to be plundered, but they CAN be used to save life.
Indeed, I think that the morality of saving a life is great enough to override the once-existant moral concners of the recently deceased.
And hey, if you want to sell them in advance, so be it, sell them to an organ depository (none in the UK, though!), and get an exemption, and write on the back of your Not a Donor Card that your organs have been sold!
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|  |
 |

 |
 |
|

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/about_transplants/organ_allocation/liver/national_protocols_and_guidelines/protocols_and_guidelines/adults.jsp "3.2.1 Alcohol-induced liver disease A history of excess alcohol is relevant in regard to potential or actual significant damage to cardiovascular and neurological tissue, or to the risk that patients might revert to alcohol abuse or might not comply with medication or follow up schedules and thus damage the new liver. A multi-disciplinary approach is required to select patients who are likely to comply with follow-up and not return to a damaging pattern of alcohol consumption after transplantation and may include psychological/psychiatric assessment. Appropriate follow-up strategies may be needed."
So it looks like they're assessed on a case-by-case basis - and anyone who has a history of alcohol replase would most likely not get given another new one as you suggest, especially if they'd already been given one transplant already, and then gone back to the drink. With regards to the cancer - there's decent medical grounds for not transplanting with patients who suffer from certain types of cancer due to the large probability of it re-occurring - particularly in conjunction with immuno suppressant drugs. "3.2.7 Malignancy Where potential liver allograft recipients have suffered from previous extrahepatic malignancy, the decision to proceed for liver transplantation should depend, in part, on the probability of malignancy recurring following liver transplantation. Some immunosuppressive agents may encourage the growth of malignancy. Patients should be considered in the light of section 2.2. With patients with primary hepatic malignancy, there are agreed criteria which predict a high probability of tumour persistence after transplantation: these include number of lesions, size of lesions, portal vein involvement and spread outside the liver capsule. Most data suggest that more than 3 liver tumours with a maximum diameter of 5 cm indicates that hapatocellular cancer is likely to persist following liver transplantation and the criteria in section 2.2. will not be met. However. These criteria are under regular review and a slight expansion, using the UCSF criteria, may be appropriate. The role of interventions that shrink the tumour (such as chemoembolisation) remains uncertain and extension of the conventional indications should be done in the context of agreed studies. In general, those known to have cholangiocarcinoma are not appropriate candidates for transplantation."
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

 |
|
|  |
 |

 |
 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
|

 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
From: vexen |
Date: July 21st, 2007 03:10 am (UTC) |
| (Link) |
|
(1) People are not free in all areas. We are not free to murder other people, to poison water wells, and legally at least, we are not free to stand as a bystander whilst an arrestable offence (such as murder) is being committed. On all these points, we are not free to choose. Yet, our 'freedom' is only impinged in order to give other people their own freedom. The overall level of freedom increases in a stable society where murder and accidental death is reduced.
Following on:
(2) We are not free to let our bodies decompose in public, because it threatens life, by causing disease. This is a precedent for our wishes towards our bodies, when we are dead, being overriden by the public good. In other words, we have to be buried or cremated. There are many freedoms here that are suppressed.
If freedom is valuable, then, once I am dead and I cannot use my body in order to act freely, it makes sense that my soon-to-be-useless organs are in fact used to allow other people to live longer and enjoy their freedom.
I should not be free to deny them life, just like I'm not free to chose to let my body decay in a field: in both cases, the public good and general freedom are both increased by making certain acts illegal/compulsory.
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
|

 |
|
| |