Hospital Waitng List

Sounds good. I assume, Don, that you're the "healthy man" in question and will be first in line for slaughter. Do you have any healthy children? I suggest you take them to the hospital with you.

Major organ transplant recipients don't live long, happy lives after transplant anyway. Anti-rejection drugs have awful side-effects and there is always a fair chance that one day, out of the blue, the body will start to reject the donated organ.

And from that point on nobody dares venture into a hospital.

Game over.

Never mind the ethics.

There's nowt like a doctor playing Devil's Advocate to ease the boredom.

I have a dear friend that had a heart transplant nearly 25 years ago when he was in his 50s. Still going and living a happy and productive life. He is an educator and still at it.
One happy exception to report!
David

..."if a healthy man walks into a hospital" - why?!

Unless he's visiting one of those needing a life-saving transplant perhaps...?

Mark

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

I know its morally unacceptable, but why?

Ok, I'll have a stab:

The ends do not justify the means.

Not only that, but the scenario is framed in such a way as to limit the scope of the problem for those to whom it is posed. All moral reasoning is limited by the ability to forsee all the possible consequences of an action/inaction. To pose a moral question in such a way as to limit the scope of the problem is mischievous.

quote:

Major organ transplant recipients don't live long, happy lives after transplant anyway. Anti-rejection drugs have awful side-effects and there is always a fair chance that one day, out of the blue, the body will start to reject the donated organ.

Inaccurate and over-simplified. Although 'normal' lifespans may not be always be possible for patients after major organ transplants (kidneys/liver/heart) etc many patients have extremely good qquality of life afterwards for many tens of years. Not all require high doses of anti-rejection drugs, and the side effects with modern regimes may not be bad. Good outcomes tend to be in patients with single-organ disease prior to the transplant.

Not all do well, but lets be honest-you only get a transplant because you are essentially dead without.

As a side note I'd remind us all we can be transplant donors by giving blood.

If you want a more subtle (and real) moral scenario to debate; should we have an assumption of consent to donate body parts when somebody dies unless the patient has an advance directive opting out (rather than the 'opt-in' situation we have now)?

Bruce

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce Woodhouse:

Inaccurate and over-simplified.

So what are the numbers then?

For instance, what is the five-year survival rate for heart transplant recipients?

quote:

For instance, what is the five-year survival rate for heart transplant recipients?

A quick search reveals..

...in the US approx 70% 5 yrs survival. Be aware that is a very heterogenous group too, within which will be great variation in pathology and outcomes. I suspect the case selection in the USA is not the same as elsewhere either. It is usually the case that agressive treatments are performed on cases in the US which we would consider to have a low chance of success.

UK liver transplant survival is approx 50% at 10 years. Patients with liver disease often have multi-organ failure and do less well.

5 year survival after renal transplant in the UK was in excess of 80% over a 34 year period of study.

These sets of figures are also skewed by significant initial mortality, the prognosis for those who survive the first year tends to be excellent. I don't reckon that is too bad when you consider the patients we are talking about.

Bruce

Hell of a lot better numbers than they get in oncology.

Looks like Don Atkinson is for the slice-and-dice brigade then...!

(Let us know your PIN number before you head off to the "cutters" there, Don.)

No need to worry - it was all covered in detail by the Monty Python crew - The Meaning of Life.

All together now...always look on the bright side of life...de doot de doot..do doot doot de do

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
No need to worry - it was all covered in detail by the Monty Python crew - The Meaning of Life.

(It's wafer-thin...)

quote:

Originally posted by Macker:
No need to worry - it was all covered in detail by the Monty Python crew - The Meaning of Life.

'Every Sperm Is Sacred' was filmed 2 streets away from where I am sat at this minute (here in 'The Third World').

Bruce

quote:

So, if a healthy man walks into a hospital, where there are five sick patients each desparartely waiting for a different transplant, why doesn't the hospital arrange to have the healthy man slaughterd, and his body parts dished out for these urgent, life-saving transplants.

I know its morally unacceptable, but why?

When I first read this propositon in a scientific magazine recently, I hadn't even reached the end of the proposition before I had decided that it was morally wrong to slaughter a healthy person to save 5 others.

I didn't need to debate it, I didn't need to even think about it, or if I did, it was only for a fraction of a second, to make sure I had properly understood the proposition.

Moral judgements can be instant and correct IMHO.

See my next post

Cheers

Don

quote:

If you want a more subtle (and real) moral scenario to debate; should we have an assumption of consent to donate body parts when somebody dies unless the patient has an advance directive opting out (rather than the 'opt-in' situation we have now)?

No.
I want doctors to not have a vested interest in letting me die.

There has been a lot of discussion in New Zealand recently around the topic of organ donation and whether we should have a register etc.

The subject is a maelstrom of ethical, social, medical and administrative concerns. It seems to me that there is a vast difference between the theory of organ donation and the cold reality for the very few people that have personal interest and/or experience with it.

After all, the vast majority of us will never go through being faced with such a choice as to whether we want a very close relative's organs to be harvested. It ought not be forgotten that people are asked this question on what usually qualifies as one of the worst days of their lives.

I do not think, either, that my choices about my body should automatically persist beyond my death. No man is an island; we all depend on others to a greater or lesser extent. Social mores often lag behind technology - and the law, rightly so, lags even further behind society than that.

Bob is absolutely right in my opinion, and for the reason he states.

If it came to it I will opt out if the system is introduced. Neither would I accept blood or a transplant.

This is not religious, but I simply find the idea of some part of another unknown human being being put into my body no less repellant than the thought of having him cooked and fed to me as food. It a vile idea.

When the Fates dictate it is time for me to go, I shall neither be sad nor fight it!

Kindest regards fom Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

When the Fates dictate it is time for me to go, I shall neither be sad nor fight it!

Kindest regards fom Fredrik

Good luck with that, Fredrik!

(I agree with the old guy in "Catch 22" - better to live on your knees than die on your feet.)

Dear Deane,

I don't agree with living on your knees! I would rather not live than be forced to live on my knees! My favourite position is seated, preferably listening to my favourite music. I am quite happy to stretch out on the floor for listening as well, but only on my own!

ATB from Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
Dear Deane,

I don't agree with living on your knees! I would rather not live than be forced to live on my knees!

Great theory. However, speaking as somebody who has had a handgun pointed at their face in earnest, I can tell you that bravery is the last thing on the mind. When it's all down to somebody else's choices, there's not much to think about (other than keeping bowel continence...)

Dear Deane,

I have never had a gun pointed at me, but once I was mugged with a knife at my throat.

The guy wanted my money and asked me how much I had.

I replied that I had £4.14, but that I would keep the two pounds and fourteen pence as he was stressing me and I would need a pint after this! Extra-ordinary as it may sound he accepted £2, and was just on his way when the Police turned up and six of them sat on him before arresting him as he had stolen £600 off an unfortunate couple some minutes earlier!

I picked the wrong person out [under pressure to make a choice] at the line up, and so never went to Court as a witness. The guy got nine months chokey! The Police found my approach both unconventional, and incredible, but I produced the remaining £2.14 for them, so not only was it incredible but demonstrably true!

No I will not live on my knees for anyone!

ATB from Fredrik

You're a gem, Fredrik.

I don't think anybody on this Forum would disagree with me either.

Back to transplants;
Don't forget, they don't really want our burnt out old sacks for transplants, it's your kids bodies that would be of real use. Obviously, most of us would have no objection to our own old bits and pieces being put to good use (assuming we no longer had use for them), but it is much harder for parents in A&E to think of their beautiful daughter being cut up for parts after a road accident.