Steve Jobs Backs Organ Donor Registry Bill in California

[WestonHarvey1]

For those who think you should have to opt-out of organ donation - what other things should be considered "implied consent"? If a girl gets drunk and passes out at a party, should we assume she has given her "implied consent" to be raped? Should she have to opt-out to be entitled to the prosecution of her attacker?

Oh, but I get it, my comparison is ridiculous because rape is bad and organ donation is good! Read that again - organ DONATION is good. Organ looting and plundering is something else.

The California bill seems to be decent - there's no automatic opt-in or opt-out - the form is simply considered incomplete until a choice is made. It's the same as giving someone the form back for forgetting to fill out their name.

In Illinois, though, we really are going after "implied consent".

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Wow, as someone who's working as a Paramedic, that's pretty insulting. OF COURSE the first thing we do is check your wallet to see your donation status before we start giving care (since you seem to be pretty thick, I'll point out that that was sarcasm). I've followed the trail of care for a lot of critical patients, and organ harvest is postponed until the last possible minute. But of course paranoid nutjobs like you wouldn't listen to anyone who actually has experience that denies their "beliefs."

There have been real situations where doctors were eager to pronounce someone dead so they could have their organs. Part of the issue is there is no definitive standard of brain death.

Google the story of Zack Dunlap. These situations will only become more common.

 

[mattster16]

Nice gesture by Steve. This isn't something he had to do. He obviously cares and after having been involved in the organ transplant system he sees problems and wants to support improvements to it. This is just what someone like Steve does. He is an innovator and a problem solver. Admitting he is fortunate enough to have the resources to afford a private jet to receive care in Memphis shows humility - he recognizes most people do not have that. You can't blame him for using his wealth to save his own life. Who wouldn't do the same? No one on here has the right to question his timing or motivation for taking up this cause.

 

[mousemd]

more importantly, does Steve Jobs not have/wear any other clothes besides the jeans and turtleneck? I mean, come on...can't he look a little more professional re: such an important topic such as organ donation?

 

[RalfTheDog]

Wow, as someone who's working as a Paramedic, that's pretty insulting. OF COURSE the first thing we do is check your wallet to see your donation status before we start giving care (since you seem to be pretty thick, I'll point out that that was sarcasm). I've followed the trail of care for a lot of critical patients, and organ harvest is postponed until the last possible minute. But of course paranoid nutjobs like you wouldn't listen to anyone who actually has experience that denies their "beliefs."

Medical professionals do a great job of protecting the rights of a potential donor. Most medical professionals take the word "professional" very seriously. You do not go into a medically related field without wanting to help people. You have my respect.

Will the medical professions be the same in 25 years, 50? how about 100? Safeguards exist, not just to protect people from bad intent today, but to protect us from a slow slide to a dystopian future.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Will the medical professions be the same in 25 years, 50? how about 100? Safeguards exist, not just to protect people from bad intent today, but to protect us from a slow slide to a dystopian future.

Exactly. The assumption that people will always do the right thing is foolish. That's what laws are supposed to be for - to protect the innocent by promising justice to the wrongdoers.

If we go down this road, we are handing over our autonomy to the state. Our bodies are no longer our own, but belong to the state to do with as they see fit.

 

[RebootD]

Typical human nature displayed, nothing more.

We humans don't lift a finger (generally speaking of course) until it effect us in some personal way. MJ Fox with Parkinson's, Magic with HIV/AIDS and now SJ with Organ Donation. All great gestures but doesn't change the truth.

 

[Morky]

After seeing the video I'm left with one impression: The Governator could snap Steve in half with his pinky.

 

[farmboy]

Organ looting and plundering is something else.

Organ looting and plundering? What? Sorry, that's just silly. The notation on a license does not trump next of kin decisions. If there is no next of kin, then the consent (or lack of it) would be implied by the notation, unless there is subsequent documentation to the contrary. "NOT A DONOR" means they cannot take your organs or tissue. At this point, however, may I remind you that you're DEAD?

 

[farmboy]

Typical human nature displayed, nothing more.

We humans don't lift a finger (generally speaking of course) until it effect us in some personal way. MJ Fox with Parkinson's, Magic with HIV/AIDS and now SJ with Organ Donation. All great gestures but doesn't change the truth.

So we're supposed to know in advance what ailments we're going to contract and be sure to *publically* support that cause?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Typical human nature displayed, nothing more.

We humans don't lift a finger (generally speaking of course) until it effect us in some personal way. MJ Fox with Parkinson's, Magic with HIV/AIDS and now SJ with Organ Donation. All great gestures but doesn't change the truth.

Most people are too busy dealing with the concerns of their own lives to get deeply involved with everything. This actually leads to a very good world, where all these things are dealt with in their own time by specialists and interested parties.

Unfortunately we now live in an "awareness culture" where we're all expected to be aware of everything around us. This ribbon bumper sticker mentality isn't helping anything. How much time in a day can one person spend being "aware" of breast cancer, autism, prostate cancer, MIA/POWs, racism, cyberbullying, sexting, and the litany of other ills?

I'll stick to taking care of my family and worrying about my job, thank you very much. If there's a particular cause I'm interested in that I think I can make some kind of contribution to, then maybe I'll do that, and maybe you can just mind your own damn business.

 

[jimbobb24]

Too few organs?

Why are there too few organs? Well, for one its because we have laws that prohibit us from paying families for the organs of the deceased. What if we gave families $10,000 for giving up the organ of a deceased family member. That would increase the organ supply alot faster than all this crazy card filling in stuff. And it is relatively small cost compared to the expense of the whole process.

It seems weird to us, but it is a cost effective way to increase the organ supply. But I guess in the US where we are moving more toward command and control and away from free markets and free minds this type of thing will never happen. Sad for us, because dying on a waiting list does not need to happen.

We pay people for plasma and we have tons of it, we don't pay people for blood and we never have enough. Paying people works well, and in this case it would only be the family. More lives would be saved.

 

[jimbobb24]

There have been real situations where doctors were eager to pronounce someone dead so they could have their organs. Part of the issue is there is no definitive standard of brain death.

Google the story of Zack Dunlap. These situations will only become more common.

I am not sure where you reach the conclusion that there is no definitive definition of brain death. There are two issues, the legal issue of brain death determined by a law making body, and the clinical definition reached by a practitioner. The clinical definition has varying standards dependent on the body (neurologists may have one set of guidelines, ICU docs another) but they all the same essential features which you can read about peripherally here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_death

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Organ looting and plundering? What? Sorry, that's just silly. The notation on a license does not trump next of kin decisions. If there is no next of kin, then the consent (or lack of it) would be implied by the notation, unless there is subsequent documentation to the contrary. "NOT A DONOR" means they cannot take your organs or tissue. At this point, however, may I remind you that you're DEAD?

So if a bum with no next of kin dies on the street, does that mean you can whip out a scalpel, and just take his organs?

If you did it, it would be a crime.

I'm sorry that having to have consent, whether from the donor or next of kin, is an obstacle to increasing the organ supply. Liberty - the free choices of free people - has a funny way of sometimes negatively impacting things like this.

You have to do it the right way. Encourage more people to donate. That's all you can legally and morally do. If you're not getting the results you want, you need to work on the message, not strip fundamental rights away to realize your goal.

 

[herr_neumann]

Typical human nature displayed, nothing more.

We humans don't lift a finger (generally speaking of course) until it effect us in some personal way. MJ Fox with Parkinson's, Magic with HIV/AIDS and now SJ with Organ Donation. All great gestures but doesn't change the truth.

I am going to have to disagree on this one. I volunteer for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society's Team in Training and would estimate that on average half of our team (SF/Marin Triathlon) has no personal connection to the Cause. A lot of people just like the feeling of "doing good." Should more people have that attitude, of course, but it does not mean it does not exist.

 

[BornAgainMac]

This thread really is going downhill. I am glad Steve is backing the donor bill.

 

[greenmeanie]

I agree.
How nice of him to cut in line in front of everyone else.

Wow, amazing. Yet another rich organ donee that didn't do anything to push organ transplants until they needed one. For more references, see David Crosby and Phil Lesh.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

Why are there too few organs? Well, for one its because we have laws that prohibit us from paying families for the organs of the deceased. What if we gave families $10,000 for giving up the organ of a deceased family member. That would increase the organ supply alot faster than all this crazy card filling in stuff. And it is relatively small cost compared to the expense of the whole process.

If you could add the value of your organs to your estate, there would be a huge increase in donors. It also avoids the ethical problems many have with live donors selling surplus kidneys, etc.

However, hospitals and doctors hate this idea - because right now they're used to getting their supplies (organs) for free, while charging huge sums for the procedure itself. It would create competition in the marketplace that they don't want.

It's a lot easier to write a law that forces everyone to give up their organs and give the medical industry their free supplies by fiat.

 

[iigsie]

Waiting for someone to explain why any sane person would vote negative. Disgusting.

 

[RalfTheDog]

I agree.
How nice of him to cut in line in front of everyone else.

No, he just went to the end of a shorter line.

 

[farmboy]

Why are there too few organs? Well, for one its because we have laws that prohibit us from paying families for the organs of the deceased. What if we gave families $10,000 for giving up the organ of a deceased family member. That would increase the organ supply alot faster than all this crazy card filling in stuff. And it is relatively small cost compared to the expense of the whole process.

It seems weird to us, but it is a cost effective way to increase the organ supply. But I guess in the US where we are moving more toward command and control and away from free markets and free minds this type of thing will never happen. Sad for us, because dying on a waiting list does not need to happen.

Wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that people don't donate because nobody is paying them for the organ. It is primarily because they are unaware of the donation, are opposed to donation, are creeped out by "cutting up the body", or think the dead person will be disfigured or hurt (yes, some people think the dead person can feel the pain, believe it or not). Or because they simply weren't asked by the donor procurement person at the hospital or nursing home (that happens all the time), or consent was obtained too late to get viable organs or tissues.

This is exactly NOT the way to increase donations, and it would lead to escalating costs, not decreased costs. And it leads to bidding wars between recipients who may have more money to pay to get well. You're poor, you lose. This is exactly the opposite of what we should do, ethically and economically. And finally, who pays for the bidding wars? Are the insurance companies, which bear the costs, going to support "buy the best organ available, we'll take care of the you"?

 

[WestonHarvey1]

I agree.
How nice of him to cut in line in front of everyone else.

Simply by living in America you've already got a pretty good place in line compared to the rest of the world.

If you feel bad about this, why not switch with someone in Haiti?

 

[mattster16]

Why are there too few organs? Well, for one its because we have laws that prohibit us from paying families for the organs of the deceased. What if we gave families $10,000 for giving up the organ of a deceased family member. That would increase the organ supply alot faster than all this crazy card filling in stuff. And it is relatively small cost compared to the expense of the whole process.

It seems weird to us, but it is a cost effective way to increase the organ supply. But I guess in the US where we are moving more toward command and control and away from free markets and free minds this type of thing will never happen. Sad for us, because dying on a waiting list does not need to happen.

As soon as you start giving payouts for organs you are just asking for abuse. Where is this $10k going to come from? Only wealthy people can 'buy' an organ now? Is insurance going to pay that $10k? This needs to remain a charity based system. Pay all you want for the removal, transplant and care but not the organ itself. Some things should NOT be treated like commodities on the market. Human organs are one of those things... The result would be a cultural shift in how we view deceased individuals. Do you really want to start applying monetary values to 'parts' of the human body? I know we already do this somewhat in the case of life/limb insurance, but what you are proposing is essentially a 'sale' of body parts. I have a similar ethical problem with the current trend of employers taking out life insurance policies on their employees where they are the sole beneficiary purely for profit reasons and the family is left with nothing. I'm all for market solutions, but sometimes we need to admit it can't improve or solve everything. The most 'cost-effective, efficient' way of doing something isn't always the RIGHT way to do something.

 

[WestonHarvey1]

As soon as you start giving payouts for organs you are just asking for abuse. Where is this $10k going to come from? Only wealthy people can 'buy' an organ now?

No, supply goes up, costs go down. More procedures done, more pressure for competing hospitals and surgeons to keep costs down. And we eliminate this nonsense about who "deserves" an organ. Look at everything around you you've ever bought. Did you deserve it? Did someone else deserve it more than you? Isn't it wrong for you to have it, then? Shouldn't someone step in and take it away and give it to the more deserving person?

 

[RalfTheDog]

As soon as you start giving payouts for organs you are just asking for abuse. Where is this $10k going to come from? Only wealthy people can 'buy' an organ now? Is insurance going to pay that $10k? This needs to remain a charity based system. Pay all you want for the removal, transplant and care but not the organ itself. Some things should NOT be treated like commodities on the market. Human organs are one of those things... The result would be a cultural shift in how we view deceased individuals. Do you really want to start applying monetary values to 'parts' of the human body? I know we already do this somewhat in the case of life/limb insurance, but what you are proposing is essentially a 'sale' of body parts. I have a similar ethical problem with the current trend of employers taking out life insurance policies on their employees where they are the sole beneficiary purely for profit reasons and the family is left with nothing. I'm all for market solutions, but sometimes we need to admit it can't improve or solve everything. The most 'cost-effective, efficient' way of doing something isn't always the RIGHT way to do something.

We could start getting them from the third world. Lots of people die in the third world. They need money. I am sure they could arrange a few accidents if the supply starts getting a bit low. Americans could go to the third world for the transplant or the donor could come to the United State for the accident.

Think of the economic boost for the pharmaceutical companies dealing with hepatitis C and AIDS.