Are you an organ donor?

[dukebound85]

Well are you?

I am not currently and I am sure I am in the minority

[jmann]

I am. If I'm dead, why do I need my organs? I'd rather give them to someone in need, I'd appreciate getting an organ if I needed one.

[it5five]

I am. It is incredibly selfish not to be. I won't need my organs when I'm dead, and I would hope that they could in turn provide a life for somebody else.

[dmr727]

I am. I figure I won't be needing them anymore.

[fluidedge]

I am. It is incredibly selfish not to be.

I don't think it's fair to call someone who doesn't wish their organs to be donated selfish. It's a very personal decision and you really can't judge people who don't share your wish to donate organs.

[ucfgrad93]

I am currently an organ donor.

[r.j.s]

I am. I also donate blood, and I have registered in the bone marrow directory.

[jessica.]

I am and my life insurance goes to some stranger too. :p

[bruinsrme]

yes I am an organ donor

[r.j.s]

... my life insurance goes to some stranger too. :p

Just a random stranger?

[Unspoken Demise]

I am not, I could be, but last time I was asked yay or nay I was still living with my mom, and she wouldn't have it. Idk why, but she would not let me. Now that it's my choice I'm still sort of on the fence.

[skunk]

Yes, but I'd prefer it if you'd wait until I'm dead. Then you can help yourself.

[TwinCities Dan]

I am, I would stay away from my lungs and liver though, my eyes work pretty well... :p :o

[chrmjenkins]

Yes, I am. We had a lengthy discussion about this in PRSI not too long ago. Lots of us were in favor of an opt-out system.

[eawmp1]

I take care of too many patients on too long of waiting lists for too few organs. I donate blood regularly and once I'm gone, what's recyclable is all yours.

[Ntombi]

I am. I also donate blood, and I have registered in the bone marrow directory.

My exact answer, except I donate platelets instead of blood.

And most importantly, my family is fully aware of my desire to donate.

[Compile 'em all]

I will take everything with me to the grave. all my macs, iphones, organs...

[dukebound85]

I will take everything with me to the grave. all my macs, iphones, organs...

buried with your computers? lol

[abijnk]

And most importantly, my family is fully aware of my desire to donate.

Excellent point.

I am as well.

[Dagless]

I'm currently not and I never really thought about it. I'm not sure. For all I know my girlfriend might want to feast on my remains.

[emt1]

I don't think it's fair to call someone who doesn't wish their organs to be donated selfish. It's a very personal decision and you really can't judge people who don't share your wish to donate organs.

No. It is selfish. You have no use for your organs after death and not being a donor is stupid and selfish. Especially if you are healthy and young. If I die young, I am donating EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. I have saved many lives throughout my life and I plan on becoming a doctor and saving even more. I want that to continue even after I die.

[Prof.]

I am. It is incredibly selfish not to be. I won't need my organs when I'm dead, and I would hope that they could in turn provide a life for somebody else.
Agreed 110% There is absolutely no reason why a person shouldn't be an organ donor. Unless they have some underlying condition.

[dukebound85]

No. It is selfish. You have no use for your organs after death and not being a donor is stupid and selfish. Especially if you are healthy and young. If I die young, I am donating EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. I have saved many lives throughout my life and I plan on becoming a doctor and saving even more. I want that to continue even after I die.

Agreed 110% There is absolutely no reason why a person shouldn't be an organ donor. Unless they have some underlying condition.

Want a reason? Because I don't want to. That's reason enough and you should be able to respect that EVEN if you, in your opinion, think its stupid and selfish:cool:. Sorry if it doesn't support your views

[emt1]

Want a reason? Because I don't want to. That's reason enough. Sorry if it doesn't support your views

No. That reason is not good enough. You will be dead. That is just despicable to refuse to donate simply because you don't want to. Someone will die because you don't want to donate your organ after you are dead. What is wrong with you?

[dukebound85]

No. That reason is not good enough. You will be dead. That is just despicable to refuse to donate simply because you don't want to. Someone will die because you don't want to donate your organ after you are dead. What is wrong with you?

Oh but it is good enough. Evidenced by the fact I am not a donor

Live with it

[anjinha]

Maybe only people who are organ donors should be allowed to receive organs.

[Prof.]

Want a reason? Because I don't want to. That's reason enough and you should be able to respect that EVEN if you, in your opinion, think its stupid and selfish:cool:. Sorry if it doesn't support your views
So you refuse to help out a fellow human being after you're dead by donating your organs so they can have a chance at life? That's... that's just disgustingly inhuman.

[jmann]

So you refuse to help out a fellow human being after you're dead by donating your organs so they can have a chance at life? That's... that's just disgustingly inhuman.

That's not fair to judge like that. It's a person decision on what to do with their body. If they want to be fed to sharks or burned and put in a box, it's their decision. Yeah, someone might not benefit from his organs, but life moves on.

[dukebound85]

So you refuse to help out a fellow human being after you're dead by donating your organs so they can have a chance at life? That's... that's just disgustingly inhuman.


If you want to change it, go lobby to make it a law that everyone who drives must be a donor.

Until then, that call is mine so live with it without calling people who don't names or whatnot

[emt1]

Oh but it is good enough. Evidenced by the fact I am not a donor

Live with it

Oh. I'll be able to live with it, but someone who needs your donation when you die won't be able to live without it.

[dukebound85]

Oh. I'll be able to live with it, but someone who needs your donation when you die won't be able to live without it.

The only people I will consider donating an organ to would be my family.

[Prof.]

Oh. I'll be able to live with it, but someone who needs your donation when you die won't be able to live without it.
Save your breath. Duke obviously only cares about himself. :rolleyes:

[r.j.s]

Oh. I'll be able to live with it, but someone who needs your donation when you die won't be able to live without it.

That's is assuming the person dies in a way that allows for donation. Not everyone does.

[dukebound85]

Save your breath. Duke obviously only cares about himself. :rolleyes:
You might want to watch your posts as they are verging on being insulting

[emt1]

Save your breath. Duke obviously only cares about himself. :rolleyes:

Obviously. That just blows my mind. I have put in countless, unpaid hours saving stranger's lives. To live like he does just... well it blows my mind. I could not image it. I certainly don't expect everyone to do what I do... but I mean.. to be an organ donor... how hard is that? How does it affect you at all?

You might want to watch your posts as they are verging on being insulting

It's not an insult. It's the truth.

[Ntombi]

Maybe only people who are organ donors should be allowed to receive organs.

Just don't want this post to be overlooked.



That's is assuming the person dies in a way that allows for donation. Not everyone does.

That goes without saying. :rolleyes:

[emt1]

Just don't want this post to be overlooked.

As much as I want to see this be the policy, I can't support it. Medicine is about compassion, not revenge.

[anjinha]

As much as I want to see this be the policy, I can't support it. Medicine is about compassion, not revenge.

I don't see it as revenge. I just think that in order for someone to receive an organ they would have to agree to become an organ donor too. I don't think it's fair at all that someone receives organs and doesn't agree to do the same.

[emt1]

I don't see it as revenge. I just think that in order for someone to receive an organ they would have to agree to become an organ donor too. I don't think it's fair at all that someone receives organs and doesn't agree to do the same.

Should hospitals also turn away people who drank and drive and got in an accident and killed someone? Should hospitals turn away people who were shot by the police because they shot at officers? It's a path I don't want to go down. Yes, dukebound's decision is selfish, but I still think he deserves healthcare, including organ donation, if he needs it.

[dukebound85]

I don't see it as revenge. I just think that in order for someone to receive an organ they would have to agree to become an organ donor too. I don't think it's fair at all that someone receives organs and doesn't agree to do the same.

hmm by that logic then everyone who wants healthcare better be paying for it huh

[emt1]

hmm by that logic then everyone who wants healthcare better be paying for it huh

What did I say about payment? Hell, I save lives for free!

[dukebound85]

What did I say about payment? Hell, I save lives for free!

that wasnt directed at youbut at her lol and her position in the healthcare thread

[anjinha]

Should hospitals also turn away people who drank and drive and got in an accident and killed someone? Should hospitals turn away people who were shot by the police because they shot at officers? It's a path I don't want to go down. Yes, dukebound's decision is selfish, but I still think he deserves healthcare, including organ donation, if he needs it.

It's not about "you do something wrong so we won't help you". It's "someone saved your life, now you have to pay it forward".

[emt1]

It's not about "you do something wrong so we won't help you". It's "someone saved your life, now you pay it forward".

But you already said that you think that people who are not organ donors should not receive organs. Do you think that if they were previously not an organ donor, but then require a donation, they should be granted one if they agree to become organ donors?

[Ntombi]

I don't see it as revenge. I just think that in order for someone to receive an organ they would have to agree to become an organ donor too. I don't think it's fair at all that someone receives organs and doesn't agree to do the same.

Should hospitals also turn away people who drank and drive and got in an accident and killed someone? Should hospitals turn away people who were shot by the police because they shot at officers? It's a path I don't want to go down. Yes, dukebound's decision is selfish, but I still think he deserves healthcare, including organ donation, if he needs it.

You're talking about past behavior, and I completely agree with you. anjinhamarota is talking about future behavior, and I can see her (?) point, which doesn't contradict yours.

I can see how that requirement could be construed as coercion, though. Asking someone to agree to some future behavior before you agree to save their life is a bit cruel. I just think it's an interesting conversation to have. ;)

[anjinha]

You guys are taking this way too seriously...

But honestly, if I died and could have a say on who my organs would go to, I would rather that they went to people who were organs donors themselves, so that maybe down the line they would save more lives too.

[emt1]

You guys are taking this way too seriously...

No no no. I don't take anything seriously. Seriously. I don't. :D

[brad.c]

…I am not currently and I am sure I am in the minority

Want a reason? Because I don't want to. That's reason enough and you should be able to respect that EVEN if you, in your opinion, think its stupid and selfish:cool:. Sorry if it doesn't support your views

Oh but it is good enough. Evidenced by the fact I am not a donor

Live with it

Why did you create this poll/thread? You have a position that you expect is unpopular, yet is one you won't change. As a starting point for discussion, it smacks more of trolling than an invitation for healthy debate.

You might want to watch your posts as they are verging on being insulting

You might want to expect this reaction.


EDIT: I voted "will be", since I'm still using them.

[yg17]

Yes. What the hell am I going to do with them when I'm dead?

[emt1]

But honestly, if I died and could have a say on who my organs would go to, I would rather that they went to people who were organs donors themselves, so that maybe down the line they would save more lives too.

I agree completely.

Yes. What the hell am I going to do with them when I'm dead?

Apparently dukebound has lots of plans for his organs post-mortem.

[SilentPanda]

I'm set up to be an organ donor... I don't really need em once I go so I don't really care. Plus I'm totally going to haunt those that take my organs.

[anjinha]

You're talking about past behavior, and I completely agree with you. anjinhamarota is talking about future behavior, and I can see her (?) point, which doesn't contradict yours.

I can see how that requirement could be construed as coercion, though. Asking someone to agree to some future behavior before you agree to save their life is a bit cruel. I just think it's an interesting conversation to have. ;)

Exactly. I probably worded myself wrong. I just posted that because I wanted to make non organ donors remember that if they had an accident they might receive an organ from someone even if they weren't willing to do the same for someone else, and that simply isn't fair.

I just wanted to see if non organ donors would think twice about organ doning if they were denied organs if they needed them.

[Counterfit]

Religious viewpoints
All major religions either accept organ donation or accept the right of individual members to make their own decision. Most religions like the Roman Catholic Church are in favor of organ donation as acts of charity and as a means of saving a life. Some impose certain restrictions. [21] For example, Jehovah's Witnesses require that organs be drained of any blood due to their interpretation of the disallowance of blood transfusion from the bible,[22] and Muslims require that the donor have provided written consent in advance.[22] Orthodox Judaism considers it obligatory if it will save a life, as long as the donor is considered dead as defined by Jewish law.[22] A few groups disfavor organ transplantation or donation; notably, these include Shinto[23] and those who follow the folk customs of the Gypsies.[22]

I'm set up to be an organ donor... I don't really need em once I go so I don't really care. Plus I'm totally going to haunt those that take my organs.

Casper-style or Jasper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk8K8utBFm0)?

Please don't be this one (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1885991).

[iObama]

Obviously. That just blows my mind. I have put in countless, unpaid hours saving stranger's lives. To live like he does just... well it blows my mind. I could not image it. I certainly don't expect everyone to do what I do... but I mean.. to be an organ donor... how hard is that? How does it affect you at all?



It's not an insult. It's the truth.

Will you stop with the "I save lives!" "I'm the best cause I save lives!" "All I do is save lives while you work 40 hours a week!" "Ha! I save lives."

We get it dude, you're an EMT. Thanks. We appreciate it. Now stop boasting and discuss the topic.

[.Andy]

What do people think about being ethically obliged to donate one of their kidneys whilst you are alive? How many of you would do it? It's an interesting topic bought up in Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save.

The odds of you requiring both kidneys in your life is incredibly low (unless you've got a pre-existing renal condition), however donating one of them will have a very high chance with current transplantation techniques of helping someone in renal failure live a longer and better quality life. How do you justify not giving up a kidney?


(edit: I'm also an organ donor and I support an opt out system.)

[mogzieee]

I am on the NHS organ donor list. Might as well give them to someone who needs them once I die.

Wierdly, in the UK, they asked me if I wanted to join the list when I was ordering my provisional driving license. Interesting pulling in technique there I might admit.

[scotthayes]

I'm on the donor list and I'm registered with the Anthony Nolan Trust as a bone marrow donor. As far as I'm concerned why I'm gone they can take what ever they need and if I'm a bone marrow match I'd give bone marrow as often as needed. I'm all for an opt-out system rather than the current opt-in.

Question for the OP. Would you accept an organ from a donor if your life depended on it? Oh and I'm not making a judgement on you for saying you would not donate, just wondering what your stance in on receiving an organ transplant.

[skunk]

What do people think about being ethically obliged to donate one of their kidneys whilst you are alive? How many of you would do it?I'd certainly feel obliged to do it for a friend or family member, though I have a well-founded horror of hospitals. As for a stranger, I don't know if I'm ready for that, but I can't really justify such a stance, so I'd probably do it eventually...

Question for the OP. Would you accept an organ from a donor if your life depended on it? Oh and I'm not making a judgement on you for saying you would not donate, just wondering what your stance in on receiving an organ transplant.Good question.

[ergdegdeg]

In Austria, everyone is an organ donor automatically. You have to opt out in order not to donate your organs upon death.

So yes, I'm an organ donor.

[fluidedge]

I don't feel comfortable with the idea of donating an organ to a stranger. They might be a saint but they could be a paedophile or rapist. There's no way i'm having my organs donated to a piece of scum. (Sorry but i have very little faith left in the world these days)

Also why should my liver that i've taken care of my whole life go to an alcoholic who couldn't give a crap about theirs? Why should my heart go to a smoker that has abused their body and not taken care of it?

Besides i believe in reincarnation and so i need my organs for the next life. Sorry.

[.Andy]

I'd certainly feel obliged to do it for a friend or family member, though I have a well-founded horror of hospitals. As for a stranger, I don't know if I'm ready for that, but I can't really justify such a stance, so I'd probably do it eventually...
I'm in a very similar position. It was a very hard chapter of the book to read. It's was very challenging to try and reconcile with my own views and rattled me a bit. Some days I'm sure that it's something that I want to do eventually. Other's I don't even want to confront the thought. But it always seems like the ethically justified stance.

In Austria, everyone is an organ donor automatically. You have to opt out in order not to donate your organs upon death.
This is how it should, and hopefully will be, everywhere :).

[skunk]

Besides i believe in reincarnation and so i need my organs for the next life. Sorry.According to Pythagoras, you will be reincarnated as a bean, so your human organs may well be de trop.

[xUKHCx]

Organ donor, blood donor, on the bone marrow register and an few other things.

If during the course of my life I can help someone else live then that would be amazing. Upon my death the same.

I carry a donor card, have a few around my house, I am on the electronic register, told my doctor and all my family too.


I'm registered with the Anthony Nolan Trust as a bone marrow donor.

Whats the difference between that and the NHS register?, do I have to register for both?

[mogzieee]

Whats the difference between that and the NHS register?, do I have to register for both?

I think (but don't quote me on it... I might be wrong!) that the NHS register is the general-for-everyone-and-everything list of donors, and the Anthony Nolan trust, and other trusts are just more specific, and if you like, subsidiaries of the NHS list.

[Ugg]

According to Pythagoras, you will be reincarnated as a bean, so your human organs may well be de trop.


What happens if he turns out to be a kidney bean?

[brad.c]

What happens if he turns out to be a kidney bean?
Then he wouldn't have a legume to stand on..?

[Rt&Dzine]

Tumours with a propensity to late recurrence, such as breast cancer, malignant melanoma and sarcomas are an absolute contraindication to organ donation, irrespective of the tumour free interval.

I don't remember any mention of this when asked if you want to be an organ donor.

[AP_piano295]

What do people think about being ethically obliged to donate one of their kidneys whilst you are alive? How many of you would do it? It's an interesting topic bought up in Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save.

The odds of you requiring both kidneys in your life is incredibly low (unless you've got a pre-existing renal condition), however donating one of them will have a very high chance with current transplantation techniques of helping someone in renal failure live a longer and better quality life. How do you justify not giving up a kidney?


(edit: I'm also an organ donor and I support an opt out system.)

I personally would not donate a kidney (unless a family member or close friend were in need) because it would adversely change my lifestyle.

It is reccomended that kidney donors dont partake in contact sports and since all of my favorites sports/activities are high speed sports that frequently involve violent contact with trees, ground, rocks etc. I like having both of my kidneys.

[emt1]

Where did the OP go?

[zioxide]

Where did the OP go?

Maybe he got sick of a bunch of posters attacking him for his own beliefs.

If he doesn't want to be an organ donor, then he doesn't have to. It's his body, and he can do what he wants with it.

[it5five]

Maybe he got sick of a bunch of posters attacking him for his own beliefs.

If he doesn't want to be an organ donor, then he doesn't have to. It's his body, and he can do what he wants with it.

Then he shouldn't have started the thread. He was asking for whatever came his way.

[TwinCities Dan]

Where did the OP go?

Duke's around, he'll be back, its not like he ran for the hills...

[dukebound85]

Where did the OP go?
Life
Maybe he got sick of a bunch of posters attacking him for his own beliefs.

If he doesn't want to be an organ donor, then he doesn't have to. It's his body, and he can do what he wants with it.

Yea, it is getting tiresome as anything I say in this thread is met with nothing but claims against my character and me being selfish

Frankly, it's my decision people

Then he shouldn't have started the thread. He was asking for whatever came his way.

That may be but why in the world will I continue posting just to get further lambasted?

Duke's around, he'll be back, its not like he ran for the hills...

I'm around but I am retiring from this thread before it results in me saying something I don't want to and getting a timeout

[it5five]

Yea, it is getting tiresome as anything I say in this thread is met with nothing but claims against my character and me being selfish

Frankly, it's my decision people



Did you ever respond to this post?

Why did you create this poll/thread? You have a position that you expect is unpopular, yet is one you won't change. As a starting point for discussion, it smacks more of trolling than an invitation for healthy debate.

[zioxide]

Then he shouldn't have started the thread. He was asking for whatever came his way.

Maybe he started it just to find out what other people's thoughts are on the subject? Just because he's curious about other people's views doesn't warrant all of the hostility towards him because of his beliefs.

[Ntombi]

Did you ever respond to this post? Nope. Nor did he respond to this one:

Question for the OP. Would you accept an organ from a donor if your life depended on it? Oh and I'm not making a judgement on you for saying you would not donate, just wondering what your stance in on receiving an organ transplant.



Oh, and I'm all for an opt-in system as well, but Americans are too paranoid about the guvmint stickin' their nose in such things. :rolleyes:


Side note: if you are of mixed race or non-white heritage, please please please get registered on the bone marrow registry. People with Native American, Asian, African, and mixed racial heritage have a much harder time finding matches, partly because we are less likely to be registered to begin with. /begging

[iShater]

We need another option, maybe.

I signed up as an OD when I got my driver's license. That was before I got married.

My wife freaked out about the idea, so although technically I am in the books, if push comes to shove she might not let anybody take anything from me. It is a weird situation, and I am sure I am not the only one in it. :o

[iShater]

Then he shouldn't have started the thread. He was asking for whatever came his way.


Why did you create this poll/thread? You have a position that you expect is unpopular, yet is one you won't change. As a starting point for discussion, it smacks more of trolling than an invitation for healthy debate.


Since when is it against the rules to ask questions? would you like to control what questions he is allowed to ask as well?

Organ donation is VERY private, it is an issues that involves family, religious beliefs, and personal comfort. Kudos to those who sign up for it and go for it. But it is NOT for everyone, because not everyone can feel comfortable enough to do it.

The way you guys have gone on the offensive is shocking. Why don't you go around and start harvesting live organs while you are at it? :eek: :rolleyes:

[armoguy94]

No. It is selfish. You have no use for your organs after death and not being a donor is stupid and selfish. Especially if you are healthy and young. If I die young, I am donating EVERYTHING POSSIBLE. I have saved many lives throughout my life and I plan on becoming a doctor and saving even more. I want that to continue even after I die.

doctors save lives?

[Full of Win]

No. I don't need some doctor licking his chops to get my organs if I'm borderline life or death.

[iShater]

No. I don't need some doctor licking his chops to get my organs if I'm borderline life or death.

LOL! I am imagining what a terrifying thought would be! :p

[skunk]

No. I don't need some doctor licking his chops to get my organs if I'm borderline life or death.You think that's what happens?

[chrmjenkins]

You think that's what happens? Why else would you become a doctor? I hear the upper intestine makes for some fabulous jewelry, and the liver is particularly tasty.

[BoyBach]

I'm on the Donor list. When I kick the bucket they can use whatever part of me might prolong an others life.

[.Andy]

Question for the OP. Would you accept an organ from a donor if your life depended on it? Oh and I'm not making a judgement on you for saying you would not donate, just wondering what your stance in on receiving an organ transplant.
I too would like to see how Dukebound's modern day flavour of libertarianism ideology deals with this question given his views.

Organ donation is VERY private, it is an issues that involves family, religious beliefs, and personal comfort. Kudos to those who sign up for it and go for it. But it is NOT for everyone, because not everyone can feel comfortable enough to do it.
It's not that private when you start a thread and a poll and are very forward with your views.

The way you guys have gone on the offensive is shocking. Why don't you go around and start harvesting live organs while you are at it? :eek: :rolleyes:
This is already done i.e. blood and kidney donation.

I personally would not donate a kidney (unless a family member or close friend were in need) because it would adversely change my lifestyle.

It is reccomended that kidney donors dont partake in contact sports and since all of my favorites sports/activities are high speed sports that frequently involve violent contact with trees, ground, rocks etc. I like having both of my kidneys.
On the ethics of this, do you think your love of contact sport is justification for not saving someone's life?

[iShater]

It's not that private when you start a thread and a poll and are very forward with your views.

I believe the name calling began before he expressed any real view.


This is already done i.e. blood and kidney donation.


Donation, not harvesting. :p

[.Andy]

I believe the name calling began before he expressed any real view.
I assume you're referring to "selfish". Which is a perfectly valid viewpoint when withholding something you don't need from someone else that can save their life.

Donation, not harvesting. :p
You harvest from a donor. You can also harvest organs from the living body of someone who is brain dead as well. I can play semantics ;).

[skunk]

I believe the name calling began before he expressed any real view.Actually he hasn't really expressed a view at all, unless you count "I'm not, live with it".



Donation, not harvesting. :pDepends on whether you are the donor or the doctor.

[BoyBach]

On the ethics of this, do you think your love of contact sport is justification for not saving someone's life?


(Apologies for cutting in!) Are you saying that the living should be wrapped in cotton wool and lead a sheltered life because they might be able to help someone when they die?

[Iscariot]

Yea, it is getting tiresome as anything I say in this thread is met with nothing but claims against my character and me being selfish

Frankly, it's my decision people

Being "your decision" doesn't somehow absolve you from making a selfish decision. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Is this the new Dukebound? Posting personal opinions with zero backing and then angrily lashing out at anyone who disagrees with you while furthering a persecution complex? I'd like to believe you can do better than that, citizen.

[Ugg]

On the ethics of this, do you think your love of contact sport is justification for not saving someone's life?

You crossed the line with this post Andy. If it was a child or spouse, I'm sure a person would have to think long and hard about it but for an unknown person, I hardly think that someone should be forced to limit what they love.

[brad.c]

I believe the name calling began before he expressed any real view.
He expressed his view in post #1.
Why else would you become a doctor? I hear the upper intestine makes for some fabulous jewelry, and the liver is particularly tasty.
:D

[.Andy]

(Apologies for cutting in!) Are you saying that the living should be wrapped in cotton wool and lead a sheltered life because they might be able to help someone when they die?
Not at all. I was merely questioning if someone's recreation is reason enough for them to not contribute to save a life. I ask from an ethical standpoint.

You crossed the line with this post Andy. If it was a child or spouse, I'm sure a person would have to think long and hard about it but for an unknown person, I hardly think that someone should be forced to limit what they love.
I'm not sure how it's crossing a line :confused:. It was just a ethical question. And I never mention forced. Is it ethical to let someone die when you can absolutley do something about it because they aren't your family and you like contact sports? Can you extend this reasoning to other actions besides organ donation?

[Iscariot]

I'm not sure how it's crossing a line :confused:. It was just a ethical question. And I never mention forced. Is it ethical to let someone die when you can absolutley do something about it because they aren't your family and you like contact sports? Can you extend this reasoning to other actions besides organ donation?

Would not an opt-out program virtually eliminate the need for live donation, thus rendering the ethical question moot?

[BoyBach]

...and the liver is particularly tasty.


...with some fava beans and a nice chianti! :eek:

[Ugg]

By coincidence, I came across the Nicholas Green Foundation (http://www.nicholasgreen.org/)

A seven year-old boy from California, Nicholas Green, was killed by highway robbers in 1994 while vacationing in Italy with his family. His parents agreed to donate his organs and corneas, which went to seven Italians waiting for transplants. Reg and Maggie Green spoke openly to the media, with no bitterness, about their loss and decision. The world took the story--and the Greens--to its heart. Organ donations in Italy have tripled since Nicholas was killed so that thousands of people are alive who would have died.

How can a person not be affected by such a story? I don't agree with Andy who feels that having two kidneys means we should all be willing to donate one of them, but when a person dies, not donating their organs is an incredible act of selfishness.

[AP_piano295]

On the ethics of this, do you think your love of contact sport is justification for not saving someone's life?

A tough question.

I mean ethically I could/should donate all of my excess income to save starving children in the third world...but I dont.

I could (in the interest of ethics) donate all of my organs and give up my life in the interest of saving a dozen(s) of lives.

One of the things I live for are the activities I do (skiing, mountain biking, wakeboarding, skateboarding). Without these things my life would lose much of its meaning. So I would choose not to give a kidney (at least not to a stranger) for the same reason that I would refuse to sacrifice my entire life to save many people. Because I would lose an important part of my metaphorical life in the donation of that kidney.

For the record I am an organ donor If I'm gone I am all for helping as many people as possible continue living.

[iBlue]

Maybe only people who are organ donors should be allowed to receive organs.
Often times I think the same thing. It's a shame so many people seem unable to understand reciprocation. However, for those who live in a country with an opt-in system (such as the UK and many many more) I wouldn't want to 'punish' those in need who simply didn't know they had to opt-in. I only registered myself as a donor several months ago (when this topic last came up) because it only then occurred to me to do so. So while I agree on principle, in practice it may not be the best policy.

hmm by that logic then everyone who wants healthcare better be paying for it huh
In civilized countries, most people do and everyone has healthcare. I think it's very liberating.

What do people think about being ethically obliged to donate one of their kidneys whilst you are alive? How many of you would do it? It's an interesting topic bought up in Peter Singer's book The Life You Can Save.
...
In the case of live donation I would insist upon having the choice of who I'm donating to. I would not be okay with compulsory donating, especially to an anonymous source. That is where I draw my selfish line. When I'm dead, my organs are a free-for-all.

I also support an opt-out system. Too many people who may be fine with donation simply don't take the time to register themselves as donors. The ones who are so against it can and should take the time to remove themselves and their organs from the donor list if it means so much to them.


For reference: how to become an organ donor in the UK (http://www.organdonation.nhs.uk/ukt/how_to_become_a_donor/how_to_become_a_donor.jsp).

No. I don't need some doctor licking his chops to get my organs if I'm borderline life or death.
:rolleyes: You can't be serious.

Why else would you become a doctor? I hear the upper intestine makes for some fabulous jewelry, and the liver is particularly tasty.
Only with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

[KingYaba]

The odds of you requiring both kidneys in your life is incredibly low

So why do humans come with two?

[jmann]

So why do humans come with two?

So that we have a spare if we need it, I guess. :)

[wywern209]

I'm set up to be an organ donor... I don't really need em once I go so I don't really care. Plus I'm totally going to haunt those that take my organs.

ahahaha! that's hilarious.Haunting ppl. i can just imagine. Well, u have my eyes now, now i get to annoy you at my behest! hahahaha! that aside, i am a organ donor as i doubt im going to feel pain or anything at all as my organs are removed from my cold, dead body. i have a question though, i've heard about bone marrow transplant and that it may or may not hurt a lot. can anyone tell me from experience or knowledge whether this hurts a lot? i can take pain but i just want to know.

[xUKHCx]

i have a question though, i've heard about bone marrow transplant and that it may or may not hurt a lot. can anyone tell me from experience or knowledge whether this hurts a lot? i can take pain but i just want to know.

There are two methods that are used in the UK to collect bone marrow.

http://www.anthonynolan.org.uk/donating/donationprocedure/what-happens-in-a-transplant.htm

And another site says this about the pain

http://www.marrow.org/DONOR/When_You_re_Asked_to_Donate_fo/Donation_FAQs/index.html#hurt



A: Marrow donation is done under general or regional anesthesia so the donor experiences no pain during the collection procedure.

Discomfort and side effects vary from person to person. Most marrow donors experience some side effects after donation. Common side effects of marrow donation include:

Lower back pain
Fatigue
Stiffness when walking
Bleeding at the collection site


Some donors said the experience was more painful than they expected; others said it was less painful. Some donors describe the pain as similar to achy hip bones or falling on their buttocks. Others say it feels more like a strained muscle in the back. The ache may last a few days to several weeks.

[Dagless]

Maybe only people who are organ donors should be allowed to receive organs.

So what about for people who have beliefs and religions that say otherwise? Because that falls quite firmly into racial discrimination, although I doubt religions that deny blood transfusions would accept donor organs (since they're chock-a-block with other peoples blood).
We had this discussion in school many years ago, and the comments against organ donation were "would a doctor let me die if my organs could save more than 1 person?", some wouldn't want to help somebody of a troubled background (one girl said she'd hate her liver to be donated to someone who'd just abuse it again with drink) and some just didn't want to be cut up, even in death.

[skunk]

So what about for people who have beliefs and religions that say otherwise? Because that falls quite firmly into racial discrimination, although I doubt religions that deny blood transfusions would accept donor organs (since they're chock-a-block with other peoples blood).Firstly, can you name one religion which does not allow organ donation? Secondly, even if there were one, there would be no question of racial discrimination: a religion is not a race. Thirdly, if you are talking about Jehovah's Witnesses, they accept organ donation as long as the organ is drained of blood.

[brad.c]

... and some just didn't want to be cut up, even in death.

On that point... is it possible to request/require that no autopsy be performed based on religious beliefs or personal preferences--even when the death happens under suspicious circumstances?

[David G.]

"A little girl was dying of cancer and her younger brother had a match for the bone marrow she needed. The doctors told him it was a matter of life and death. After he had the surgery, he asked the doctors how long he had to live. He thought if he gave his bone marrow to let his sister live he would die but he did it anyway. GMH"
Link (http://www.givesmehope.com/view/GMH/6612)

[Rodimus Prime]

Firstly, can you name one religion which does not allow organ donation? Secondly, even if there were one, there would be no question of racial discrimination: a religion is not a race. Thirdly, if you are talking about Jehovah's Witnesses, they accept organ donation as long as the organ is drained of blood.

some african reliegous think that it is not right.

of the major ones none but it will be the smaller unheard of ones.

Personally I think it should be left up to the person and I think it should be an opt out thing.

I will not think some one is selfish for not donating. It is personal and some thing that some one might not want to give up. Yes they are dead but it also means the body must be cut up to do it. Some people are just not comfortable with their bodies being cut up.

[skunk]

some african reliegous think that it is not right.

of the major ones none but it will be the smaller unheard of ones.So your answer is "No", you cannot name a single one. Thank you.

[EmperorDarius]

Never.

[arkitect]

of the major ones none but it will be the smaller unheard of ones.

"Will be"?
And how unheard of can they be since you've obviously heard of them — not that you could "name" any of them…

[skunk]

Never.A fine contribution to the discussion. Thank you. I always like a well-crafted argument.

[jackiecanev2]

I will not think some one is selfish for not donating. It is personal and some thing that some one might not want to give up. Yes they are dead but it also means the body must be cut up to do it. Some people are just not comfortable with their bodies being cut up.

There is absolutely nothing uncomfortable when you are DEAD.

To each and everyone one of you who think that you're not acting selfish: I hope you are nothing more than young and foolish, because it is the only excuse for your current state of ignorance. I hope that you never find yourself with a terminal illness in which your time on earth is dependent on your placement on the UNOS list. I hope that someone in your life never finds themselves in a dire situation in which an organ is needed, and that you never have to sit there and look into their eyes, completely helpless, while they die. And if, for some reason, you do find yourself in one of these situations, that you do get the organs that you need... and that you look back on this time in your life and realize that the world is bigger than yourself, and that there was a time when you simply did not believe it was...

[rhett7660]

Yup I am......

[tkermit]

Would not an opt-out program virtually eliminate the need for live donation [...]

I was very surprised myself to recently find out this doesn't seem to be the case. Here's a snippet from a very interesting and slightly disturbing article in which the author proposes looking beyond altruism in organ donation. I think the whole article (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907u/kidney-donation) is well worth a read. I wasn't really aware of concepts like paired exchanges and donor chains before.

To end the list, we first have to give up the idea that “organ donor” means someone dead. Deceased donors are, of course, essential for hearts. But not for kidneys. And not enough people die in exactly the right way to meet the need for kidneys. The best estimate is that there are between 10,500 and 13,800 brain-dead potential organ donors each year. More than half already become donors, and not all their kidneys can be used. If every single person who died the right way became an organ donor, an optimistic estimate would be that 7,000 more kidneys a year would be available for transplant. Since the list is now increasing by 6,000 a year, that would be enough to end it—in 80 years.

[UWSpindoctor]

Firstly, can you name one religion which does not allow organ donation?

Shinto (per the Donate Life California site)

[lamadude]

I am, because where I live (Belgium) everyone is an organ donor, unless they opt-out. (very few people bother to opt out) I hope my organs may live a long and happy life even after I'm dead :-)

[djellison]

Quite an interesting contrast that Duke refuses to allow anyone control over his own bodily organs, but also wants control over the wombs of the worlds women.

Kind of selfish.

[BoyBach]

Quite an interesting contrast that Duke refuses to allow anyone control over his own bodily organs, but also wants control over the wombs of the worlds women.

Kind of selfish.


Now now! The PRSI is no place for logic.

[dukebound85]

Quite an interesting contrast that Duke refuses to allow anyone control over his own bodily organs, but also wants control over the wombs of the worlds women.

Kind of selfish.

You know, I could say the same thing in reverse:rolleyes:

This is more my call as guess what, my body is 100% mine. A pregnant woman can NOT say the same thing as another life is DIRECTLY dependent on her body for survival. Organ donation is indirect

Funny as you are all for the choice of a women in regard to abortion yet when one chooses not to be an organ donor, that mindset falls away and you call people selfish. Nice stance you have there:cool:

To me, the baby's right to EXIST supersede that of the mother's right to CONVENIENCE

Now now! The PRSI is no place for logic.

I know right? Anyone who is fine with mothers killing their own babies yet states its selfish not to donate organs to save strangers does contradict common sense doesnt it...lol

[gibbz]

I am a donor.

Certainly people can decide what will happen to their bodies when they die. However, I look at simple logic which says that I have zero use for my body when I am dead, so if I may give someone a chance to live with what I no longer need I will. To do otherwise is selfish in my opinion (without knowing anyone's situation and religious beliefs).

[Iscariot]

I know right? Anyone who is fine with mothers killing their own babies yet states its selfish not to donate organs to save strangers does contradict common sense doesnt it...lol

Oh but it is good enough. Evidenced by the fact that abortions are legal

Live with it

[MTI]

In the ER & Hospital slang:

Organ Donor: Operator of two wheeled vehicles such as bicycles and motorcycles that do not wear helmets or other protective clothing.

[Zombie Acorn]

I am an organ donor, not really for some moral reason, the guy at the DMV asked me and I just said 'sure' as a first reaction. I sure as hell am not going to care. Maybe there should be some sort of reimbursement to the family of the deceased for the organ though.

[shivermetimbers]

I am an organ donor. I did however have quite the scare a few years back. I had a really bad get-off on my dirt bike. I broke 5 ribs/collar bone, all on the same side, my spleen was pretty beat up and I was bleeding internally. It hurt like hell needless to say but felt like it was nothing I could not bounce back from.

As I was in the emergency room, I was higher than a kite off morphine to take the edge off the pain. This nurse sits on my bed and looks all serious like. She ask's me how I am feeling and if I was an organ donor. Morphine or not, that scared the hell out of me. I told her quite politely, "Why yes I am, but I am not done using my stuff yet." True story.....

I still ride......gotta love it.

[Doctor Q]

There are two methods that are used in the UK to collect bone marrow...

xUKHCx quoted a post of mine that tells about bone marrow donation, but that's only part of the story, as his linked sites indicate.

Marrow can also be donated in the form of stem cells from your bloodstream. It's called a peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) donation and it's very much like donating blood. Those sites give more details.

Stem cell donations are becoming more and more common, supplanting bone marrow donations. That means even less risk (and it was already miniscule), and much less discomfort, if any.

Either way, I've been on the marrow donor list for years, and I am signed up for them to use any organs to help others when I no longer need 'em. Of course I stipulated that first priority should be given to Macintosh users. ;)

[djellison]

contradict common sense doesnt it

Not sure about common sense - but your stance does contradict all scienticfic opinion.

That you think women elect to abort because "Well - a baby would be sort of inconvenient right now".

The warped, twisted and convoluted way you express your moral stance is frankly, laughable.

[spillproof]

I am an organ donor and registered in the bone marrow directory.

Should hospitals also turn away people who drank and drive and got in an accident and killed someone? Should hospitals turn away people who were shot by the police because they shot at officers? It's a path I don't want to go down. Yes, dukebound's decision is selfish, but I still think he deserves healthcare, including organ donation, if he needs it.
I don't feel comfortable with the idea of donating an organ to a stranger. They might be a saint but they could be a paedophile or rapist. There's no way i'm having my organs donated to a piece of scum. (Sorry but i have very little faith left in the world these days)

Also why should my liver that i've taken care of my whole life go to an alcoholic who couldn't give a crap about theirs? Why should my heart go to a smoker that has abused their body and not taken care of it?

You just gave me a great idea for my research project. I agree with them, but I have no control over who they go too. I live with the thought that my organs will go to someone who cares about their life and others.


So why do humans come with two?

Like with gallbladders, tonsils, and wisdom teeth, we evolved not to need both of them.

[.Andy]

Like with gallbladders, tonsils, and wisdom teeth, we evolved not to need both of them.
You have two gallbladders :eek:!

[iBlue]

^ :D

..
Like with gallbladders, tonsils, and wisdom teeth, we evolved not to need both of them.

I don't know, maybe there is an evolutionary reason we have two kidneys. Maybe it's better for our survival that we have a spare. </pure speculation>

I do wish we could get on with the phasing out of those wisdom teeth though, what a nuisance. (I had 4 "full bone impactions" surgically extracted, I felt very un-evolved.)

[.Andy]

Well, here is my answer to that. I am NOT a donor. The reason being that I don't trust doctors further than I can throw them. Sure, if you are lucky you end up in a hospital where they really wait until you are dead, but who says I don't end up under the scalpel of some overeager ER doc that just can't wait to start stripping me for parts. No thank you. In fact, I have given my attorney the authority and mission to ensure that any doctor who ignores my wish not to be a donor gets stripped of his/her license to practice medicine. I have worked in the healtcare industry for a few years now and my experience is that it's one of the biggest rackets in the world. Most of it is still voodoo jungle medicine with shiny scientific names and white lab coats.
Cheers,

Ahmed
This is the very best reasoning that non-donors can come up with besides "i just don't want to".

[edesignuk]

I'm an organ donor.

There's several people here I'd like to have on an exclusion list of sorts though :rolleyes:

Sometimes I just can't believe what I'm reading.

[brn2ski00]

Yes, don't see why its an issue - people helping people!

[iBlue]

Thank you for the comment... I happen to be involved in company clinical trials and medical review for my employer and some of the things we see doctors come to us with gives me hives. In particular when it comes to justification for treatment decisions, trial designs and board rulings such as those from EMEA and NICE. Some of the things used for evidence and justification are simply perverse. Aside from that, did you know that MDs nowadays demand on average $8000 of "consulting fee" per enrolled patient in a trial, and that doesn't include administrative, drug or any other costs. How is this not a racket? Also, ask any given doctor as to why he makes a specific treatment or diagnostic decision. Ever so often, you will run into an honest one that will tell you "because that is where I can get the most money from the reimbursement agency". Example in point, why I.V. treatment is preferred over Oral treatment, the doc gets more money.
So, sorry, I may not be a doctor, but I know what I am talking about.
Cheers,

Ahmed
Sticking it to the people who may need organ transplants because you don't like the corruption in the medical field seems an odd way to go about it.

[.Andy]

Thank you for the comment... I happen to be involved in company clinical trials and medical review for my employer and some of the things we see doctors come to us with gives me hives. In particular when it comes to justification for treatment decisions, trial designs and board rulings such as those from EMEA and NICE. Some of the things used for evidence and justification are simply perverse. Aside from that, did you know that MDs nowadays demand on average $8000 of "consulting fee" per enrolled patient in a trial, and that doesn't include administrative, drug or any other costs. How is this not a racket? Also, ask any given doctor as to why he makes a specific treatment or diagnostic decision.
This has absolutely no relevance to organ donation. To call a spade a spade this is a 1000 word appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Example in point, why I.V. treatment is preferred over Oral treatment, the doc gets more money.
There are massive differences between the two. Oral treatments have to go past the liver first. The kinetics of the two administration routes are completely different. Some treatments can't even be taken orally. Some can only be taken orally. It's true that intravenous administration of drugs is more costly given the hospitalisation and specialist care required to maintain drips. But to say that doctors chose to give IV purely because they make more money if absolute nonsense. In most cases referring a patient for admission and IV treatment would decrease the amount of money a doctor would make.

So, sorry, I may not be a doctor, but I know what I am talking about.
There seems to be a discrepancy between what you think you know and what you actually know.

Another case in point. ER doctors don't harvest organs.

[xUKHCx]

The process to remove organs ready for transplant is a little more complicated than just one doctor.

[maflynn]

I don't and I disagree with the other posters who have a contrary opinion. Just because others do not share the same perspective means they're wrong and/or selfish.

I have my reasons why I choose not be an organ donor and they are personal which is why I've not stated them on an internet board.

[iBlue]

As much as I feel for the people that need a transplant, it's because of the corruption that I do not trust the physician to make the right decision to to determine when I am actually dead before he/she starts taking organs. You see my point?

Not really. I think you have an idea in your head and you're convinced by it but I believe it to be an entirely flawed concept.

[.Andy]

As much as I feel for the people that need a transplant, it's because of the corruption that I do not trust the physician to make the right decision to to determine when I am actually dead before he/she starts taking organs. You see my point?
Given your vast medical experience I'm sure you are aware that there are stringent objective criteria that must be satisfied for someone to be pronounced dead. A physician doesn't just "decide".

[edesignuk]

Given your vast medical experience...
Occupation:
International Management Trainee, A major pharmaceutical company

http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Smilies/Dogeyes.gif

[.Andy]

http://up.edesignuk.com/files/1/Images/Smilies/Dogeyes.gif
It's making a bit more sense now.

[edesignuk]

Your point being?
Cheers,

AhmedI just thought it was relevant to the discussion. Nothing personal or specific, just an interesting bit of information.

[.Andy]

Err, no. Example in point. I.V. treatment in Oncology does not require hospitalization but can be done in a walk-in fashion.
Again you're making ridiculous sweeping assertions. Plenty of oncology chemotherapy most definitely requires admission given the side effects involved. Administration of ambulatory chemo is something that doctors would love to give if the option is available. To imply that all oncology treatment does not require hospitalisation is a blatant lie.

In many indications in Oncology there is both oral and I.V. therapies available, in many cases the oral treatment actually being the safer and more efficacious one.
How about some specifics? Which agents are you talking about? More than happy to debate you in this area.

It is for that reason that the profitability of an outpatient oncology clinic is in part determined by how many I.V. chairs they can support at one time.
Number of patients treated correlates with income into a unit. Personally turning over 50 times as many patients with your mystical "equivalent tablet" would be much better (and profitable) than having patients tied up in chairs receiving IV. And better for the patients quality of life.

Another example are loco-regional treatments vs. systemic treatments for metastasis. Loco-regional treatments are highly profitable for the hospitals and doctors on many occasions treat patients loco-regionally for that reason alone, far outside of guidelines. One example for this is TACE in liver cancer and liver metastasis. Other is cyberknife and radio-therapy and there is quite a few other examples.
Surgical and medical systemic treatments are not the same thing. Surgical resection for metastatic cancer and systemic treatments are often used in adjunct. They don't provide exactly the same method of action. For many tumours neoadjuvant treatment with systemic chemo is carried out to shrink a tumour first before surgery. And/or following surgery to mop up any missed cells. Or alternatively surgery (or radiotherapy/chemo) is just used in a palliative sense to decrease the size of the tumour and relieve any symptoms it may be causing. For some kinds of tumour systemic treatment is the preferred option. For others surgery is better.

You cannot blanket impose equivalency between surgery and systemic oral treatment (or indeed superiority of oral treatment) without scientific evidence to back up what you are claiming.

There is even papers available on PubMed reviewing results of transplant surgery outside of established criteria.
Not big on backing anything up or supplying specifics are you?

[Veldek]

I am a donor but I excluded several things like skin and part of the eyes because I want to be sure that I could still be layed out in state without my family and friends freaking out ;)

[iJohnHenry]

I'm a little short, as of late, but yes, I have been a registered organ-donor since the beginning of time, for some of you. :p

[Doctor Q]

I am a donor but I excluded several things like skin and part of the eyes because I want to be sure that I could still be layed out in state without my family and friends freaking out ;)
If a few parts of me were missing, my family would be more proud than upset. As long as they leave my Q hat on me, everyone will know it's me. And too bad for anyone who needs a Q hat transplant.

[.Andy]

Bevacizumab, temsirolimus market share in kidney cancer vs. sunitinib, just to give you one.
I don't think you're understanding. There has to be evidence from randomised controlled data evidence that one is superior to the other. There also has to be long-term safety and efficacy data. There also has to be availability at reasonable cost. You can't just assert than drug A is better than drug B and make up stories about how doctors aren't using it because they don't make money prescribing it.

In colorectal cancer I have sat in on debates where doctors were reluctant to give up treating RAS mutated patients with bevacizumab although there is absolutely no point in treating them with the drug.
I don't believe you at all. Anecdotes are worthless. Sitting in on a "debate" is also an incredibly poor substitute for knowing a patient's full history and physical exam, histology, and treatment wishes.

Same applies for herceptin where HER2neu negative patients were given herceptin on the off chance that there was a few HER2neu positive cells that escaped detection.
As above.

It wasn't until the reimbursement agencies clamped down on that that it stopped. Another example is bisphosphonates. I.V. is preferred over Oral because of the financial incentive even though there is NO EVIDENCE (meaning head to head trials) that suggest I.V. is better.
Absolute rubbish. Again have you any evidence for this? There is also a different risk profile for oral vs IV bisphosphonates. If you're referring to zaledronic acid as the IV version it's also only given once per year as opposed to continual oral administration. The two routes of administration are completely different. They aren't equivalent and substitutable for each other.

Just 2 Examples From Pubmed:

1. Poorer survival in patients whose explanted hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceeds Milan or UCSF Criteria. An analysis of liver transplantation in HCC in Australia and New Zealand.

If people followed criteria (and Milan and UCSF are well established) these papers shouldn't exist.
This first study was a retrospective studies examining out comes before and after the criteria were established. The conclusion was in favour of the criteria. Again reality is far different from what you think you know. This doesn't show what you claimed.

2. Predicting survival after liver transplantation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the Milan criteria: a retrospective, exploratory analysis.
And this one doesn't show what you think it does either. Did you actually even read the abstract?
Interpretation
More patients with hepatocellular carcinoma could be candidates for transplantation if the current dual (yes/no) approach to candidacy, based on the strict Milan criteria, were replaced with a more precise estimation of survival contouring individual tumour characteristics and use of the up-to-seven criteria.
It was a trial the criteria that the authors used were deemed superior to the Milan criteria. This is a good thing for patients. Again it's not an example of doctors flaunting the rules. It's an example of doctors carrying out trials (with strict patient consent and ethics committee approval) to improve clinical outcomes.

[skunk]

it's not an example of doctors flaunting the rulesFlout ≠ flaunt. Otherwise, you're doing a fine job, carry on. :)

[.Andy]

Flout ≠ flaunt. Otherwise, you're doing a fine job, carry on. :)
If only my wife would proofread my posts....

When I ask she just rolls her eyes and makes a sighing sound.

[skunk]

If only my wife would proofread my posts....

When I ask she just rolls her eyes and makes a sighing sound.That's probably a Good Thing in the Mergui Archipelago. Go to her. She is obviously feeling flaunty. :cool:

[spillproof]

Like with gallbladders, tonsils, and wisdom teeth, we evolved not to need both of them.
You have two gallbladders :eek:!

Haha, as far as I know I only have one, I hope.


^ :D


I don't know, maybe there is an evolutionary reason we have two kidneys. Maybe it's better for our survival that we have a spare. </pure speculation>

I do wish we could get on with the phasing out of those wisdom teeth though, what a nuisance. (I had 4 "full bone impactions" surgically extracted, I felt very un-evolved.)

That is possibly about the "just in case" survival thing or when our very distant ancestors ate raw meat and needed the extra molars.
Yah, I only had 3 wisdom teeth but they were fairly easy to take out but it hurt like nothing else after the nitro wore off.
Sorry to hear you have an un-evolved mouth. :)

[.Andy]

Let's take Kidney cancer. All drugs for First Line were developed around the same time and tested against either Interferon or Placebo depending on Trial. Bevacizumab + low dose INF was tested against high dose interferon in a patient spectrum that included patients in which high dose interferon was not indicated due to the high innate toxicity of high dose interferon. The temsirolimus trial was even worse. Here the trial was run vs interferon in intermediate and high risk patients, patients that should never have received interferon in the first place. temsirolimus only showed efficacy vs interferon in high risk patients, an indication that rather than having any effect, it just killed less patients than high dose interferon. Yet both drugs snag about 60% of market share vs the oral treatments which were stratified more appropriately
Sorry but please link me to the papers. The previous papers you linked to did not show what you purported so I'm not taking your word for this on face value.

Currently there is 3 classes of bisphosphonates approved for the treatment of bone metastasis......The once a year dosing is for postmenopausal osteoporosis and not bone metastasis. Do your homework
You're talking about bisphosphonates for bone mets now :confused:? You made absolutely no mention of this in your previous post. Your previous post referred to bisphosphonates in general;
Another example is bisphosphonates. I.V. is preferred over Oral because of the financial incentive even though there is NO EVIDENCE (meaning head to head trials) that suggest I.V. is better.
So you've shifted your argument to a very specific use of bisphosphonates which would be one of the absolute minority uses for them. And again you haven't backed this up with any data whatsoever.

This isn't the first time you've done this. You also made this claim;
Example in point. I.V. treatment in Oncology does not require hospitalization but can be done in a walk-in fashion.
Which again is a sweeping generalisation that is indefensible and easily proven wrong. If you want to debate and talk about specific treatments I'll be more than happy but please be clear of what you're talking about initially. Don't make broad generalisations only to shift your argument everytime you're called on it. It's not only nauseous but it's spreading disinformation.

Btw. you should be capable to do your own PubMed searches there isn't that many PhIII pubs and to get the SmPCs of the drugs.
No. If you want to debate you provide references for your own assertions. To not do so is intellectually lazy. If you don't wish to do so don't bother to post. The onus is on you.

Regardless, you have your opinion that you trust the gods in white. I have mine that I don't one bit. Let's leave it at that.
No I don't trust "Gods in white". Nor do I care for such petulant strawman debating techniques. I trust the science and rationale behind the treatment regimes. Which includes a critical appraisal of the evidence base behind the medicine, a good working knowledge of the patient's condition including comorbidities, and most importantly the wishes of the patient. "Opinion" is the absolute lowest form of evidence. But appears to be your most plentiful.