Except that he didn't. It's a myth which has been previously refuted by medical and transplantation professionals.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Steve Jobs Backs Organ Donor Registry Bill in California
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except that he didn't. It's a myth which has been previously refuted by medical and transplantation professionals.
This doesn't work.
You donate blood and the Hospital turns around and charges you dearly for it.
The same with Organs.
You donate blood and the Hospital turns around and charges you dearly for it.
The same with Organs.
Opt-OUT
all organ donation should be OPT-OUT... and take a ton of difficult paperwork to actually opt out of.
1) Organ donation in all states should be opt-out
2) to get an organ, you should have to be on the donor list.
and that's it.
if anyone reading this isn't an organ donor... then you are a selfish *******. it's just that simple.
all organ donation should be OPT-OUT... and take a ton of difficult paperwork to actually opt out of.
1) Organ donation in all states should be opt-out
2) to get an organ, you should have to be on the donor list.
and that's it.
if anyone reading this isn't an organ donor... then you are a selfish *******. it's just that simple.
Say what?
There are about....I'm just guessing here...1 billion examples where paying someone for something increases the amount of it in the market. So...the fact there is not evidence that people don't donate because they are not paid is...mildly interesting but does not negate the billion example we have where we know that by paying people it will increase.
I am not sure of the cost nature, because it is not clear what is cheaper...getting off the waiting list and weekly dialysis or getting a kidney a year earlier that cost $10,000. Or getting a liver a year sooner vs being hospitalized multiple times with variceal bleeding? I don't know which costs more, but I kind of don't care because I know that people on the waiting lists would probably pay to be off the waiting list, and who am I to tell them they cannot?
Alot of the concerns I preempted above by saying we would only pay for organs from dead people/brain dead. Paying for donations from living donors would be very complicated and a far greater ethical dilemma (but I would do it for partial liver and there is a court case in process debating bone marrow).
A bidding war does not necessarily mean prices will go up...if supply goes up the price might do down. Eventually (and stop me if you have heard this before) demand might equal supply at some magical price point.
There are about....I'm just guessing here...1 billion examples where paying someone for something increases the amount of it in the market. So...the fact there is not evidence that people don't donate because they are not paid is...mildly interesting but does not negate the billion example we have where we know that by paying people it will increase.
I am not sure of the cost nature, because it is not clear what is cheaper...getting off the waiting list and weekly dialysis or getting a kidney a year earlier that cost $10,000. Or getting a liver a year sooner vs being hospitalized multiple times with variceal bleeding? I don't know which costs more, but I kind of don't care because I know that people on the waiting lists would probably pay to be off the waiting list, and who am I to tell them they cannot?
Alot of the concerns I preempted above by saying we would only pay for organs from dead people/brain dead. Paying for donations from living donors would be very complicated and a far greater ethical dilemma (but I would do it for partial liver and there is a court case in process debating bone marrow).
A bidding war does not necessarily mean prices will go up...if supply goes up the price might do down. Eventually (and stop me if you have heard this before) demand might equal supply at some magical price point.
That is a ridiculous argument. Sorry I guess I just disagree that an organ from another living person can be equated to my other material possessions... it's not a commodity, I can't compare a kidney to my iPhone. That is exactly what you are proposing. How much is your heart worth? What would you sell it for? Noone 'deserves' an organ more than anyone else. You are proposing a system where the criteria for determining someone's organ transplant urgency is based on how much they can pay. Also, since current costs are not based on the organ price itself (since organs are now considered priceless) your proposal would do nothing to reduce costs like you are saying they would. It doesn't address the price of organ removal, transportation, transplant or post-care at all. I'd argue that you analysis of the market itself is also incorrect. I'd propose that the limiting factor for organ supply is not the unwillingness to donate for a monetary reason. "I'm not going to agree to donate because I'm not getting enough money for this." is not something anyone would think when considering donating a loved-one's organs. You really wish to incentivize that type of thinking?
The system does work, but needs improvement. Regarding your *donation* of blood---it's a perishable donation, not a savings account. They don't hold it until you need it some time in the future (some surgical patients excepted). And if you think they charge you dearly for it now, wait until it's in short supply because people like you don't donate.
Regarding "same with Organs": Not. Donors not usually recipients (some daisy chain surgeries excepted). And it's against federal law to sell organs.
Low cost
The $10,000 I threw out is really cheap. Really cheap. The surgery to put the organ in someone is going to run them about $20,000 and the hospital stay will be about $20,000 and the drugs for anti-rejection will be $5000 a year or so (my numbers are probably low-balling, did not take time to look it up). So, wrapping up the cost of procuring the organ into the process is trivial.
The organs already have a value, I am just suggesting we recognize it and pay people for it. I want to do this to increase the amount of organs in the system and help more people get off ridiculous waiting lists. Being on the waiting list is horrible. I want to help people get off it in a way that benefits everyone. This solution does, but I agree some people would find it ethically difficult.
We already have a dollar amount for plasma - just call your donation center in town. It is about $50 per 1.5 liters. We happily pay people to give something their body produces and everyone wins.
What if you are poor and die in a car accident, leaving your young family destitute. Would that family be better off if they donate their organs and have the good feeling they helped another, or got $10,000 per donated organ AND got the good feeling of helping another person.
Its all theoretical anyway, because most people have your reaction - it just sounds icky to them. Until they are on a waiting list, then it sounds awesome.
The $10,000 I threw out is really cheap. Really cheap. The surgery to put the organ in someone is going to run them about $20,000 and the hospital stay will be about $20,000 and the drugs for anti-rejection will be $5000 a year or so (my numbers are probably low-balling, did not take time to look it up). So, wrapping up the cost of procuring the organ into the process is trivial.
The organs already have a value, I am just suggesting we recognize it and pay people for it. I want to do this to increase the amount of organs in the system and help more people get off ridiculous waiting lists. Being on the waiting list is horrible. I want to help people get off it in a way that benefits everyone. This solution does, but I agree some people would find it ethically difficult.
We already have a dollar amount for plasma - just call your donation center in town. It is about $50 per 1.5 liters. We happily pay people to give something their body produces and everyone wins.
What if you are poor and die in a car accident, leaving your young family destitute. Would that family be better off if they donate their organs and have the good feeling they helped another, or got $10,000 per donated organ AND got the good feeling of helping another person.
Its all theoretical anyway, because most people have your reaction - it just sounds icky to them. Until they are on a waiting list, then it sounds awesome.
It doesn't sound 'icky' to me. Besides finding it morally wrong, it is just economically unfeasible. I know organs already have value, but all value is not monetary value. That is a simplistic way of thinking in economics and often leads to incorrect conclusions. Your analysis is correct for most renewable commodities, but applying the theory to the organ market fails due to other influencing factors.
You say this, "So, wrapping up the cost of procuring the organ into the process is trivial." Unfortunately you aren't talking about the costs of procuring the organ. Those costs are already in the current process. You are talking about assigning monetary value to the organ itself which isn't the same as the costs of procuring the organ.
You cannot compare the market for plasma to organs, one is replenish-able and the other isn't (aside from the birth of a new person, but hopefully you can see the difference).
Of course it would be wonderful for the family of a deceased person to receive financial help after the death of a loved one. You just aren't addressing the initial source of the money at all, that is where your theoretical organ market breaks down.
No need to debate this any more. It feels weird to be talking about this on macrumors...
Well, there are lots of exceptions to the Law of Demand, which we don't have to get into here. But, at any one time, there are vastly more healthy livers available from people who die every day from causes that do not contraindicate donation, than there are diseased liver patients requiring transplants, so the cost is where it is. Money is not the issue. Any shortage is due to failure to donate out of superstition, or religious belief, or failure to timely procure, assuming tissue matching. None of which require a stimulus package to solve. Just sign the card, and we don't have to get into economics about this.
Finally, do you really want to promote a system where profit-taking must control every single human interaction? Should selflessness be an unusual concept? Very Ferengi-like. I love capitalism too, but should your mom charge you for dinner just because there might be more noodles available if you're willing to cough up some cash?
If anyone is interested in learning about why a simple opt out checkbox on license applications is so effective then this TED talk by Dan Ariely is excellent.
This knee-jerk argument that medical professionals would be hanging around the bedside waiting for body parts is insulting to the intelligence (not to mention to the medical profession). Ironically it would be more likely when there are fewer donors (i.e. now in many places with opt in policies) than if there were more.
This knee-jerk argument that medical professionals would be hanging around the bedside waiting for body parts is insulting to the intelligence (not to mention to the medical profession). Ironically it would be more likely when there are fewer donors (i.e. now in many places with opt in policies) than if there were more.
all organ donation should be OPT-OUT... and take a ton of difficult paperwork to actually opt out of.
1) Organ donation in all states should be opt-out
2) to get an organ, you should have to be on the donor list.
and that's it.
if anyone reading this isn't an organ donor... then you are a selfish *******. it's just that simple.
Let's apply "implied consent" to the 4th amendment, too. Let people opt-out via a ton of difficult paperwork.
It would be so much easier to solve crimes if everyone would just do their duty and allow random searches. How inconvenient is it, really, if you've got nothing to hide? And the selfish *******s that actually opt-out... well, they're probably just criminals, and this makes them a lot easier to spot. Won't waste so much time and money on fruitless search warrants.
There's really no downside at all to this.
Right, because no one ever does anything wrong, ever! And that's why we don't need laws protecting people.
Some of us also have knee-jerk constitutional arguments against this. If you think there's no possibility this runs afoul of any constitutional protections, you'd better get your lawyers ready.
If an action REQUIRES consent to be legal, then said consent can NEVER be IMPLIED.
Never said all value was monetary, also did not say all roads lead to Rome, alls well that ends well, or the ends justify the means.
This analysis is not mine. Lots of people smarter than me have written about it and proposed it. I just think it makes sense and I hate to see the suffering of people on waiting lists.
The point of comparing it to plasma is the ethical point of getting over not being able to deal with human tissue as un-sellable. I agree, the one time nature makes it different in its own market.
Why do I need to address the initial source of the money? I just think we ought to make it legal to pay for the organs of deceased people. Once it was legal free people would work out the details and whether it was economically feasible. Maybe...its not and we would find that out once it was legal. That's the great thing about freedom, you don't need to work out the details, you just let people be free and they decide.
And ok...back to work.
all organ donation should be OPT-OUT... and take a ton of difficult paperwork to actually opt out of.
1) Organ donation in all states should be opt-out
2) to get an organ, you should have to be on the donor list.
and that's it.
if anyone reading this isn't an organ donor... then you are a selfish *******. it's just that simple.
I'm not an organ donor. And I just read it. It looks like I'm a selfish *******. Go me! In fact, I checked the "no" box when I renewed my license last summer at the DPS. I actually consciously chose not to give someone my organs.
That's the great thing, though. I can choose to give my organs. I can choose not to. But in the end, it's my choice. The guv'mint has no default right to my organs, and that's the way I like it. If, as other have proposed, my family would get $10,000 for my liver or $3,000 for my cornea, sure, I'd sign up. But for now, they're my organs, and I'd like to be buried with them if it's not too much trouble. Thanks.
Same here. Agree 100%. There's a lot more of us than these anti-freedom pro-government folks think.
Its not MAC its Mac.
MAC = Media access control
Mac = Macintosh
Also Im very happy to see this topic! It really proves to all those people who deny steve jobs has no heart that he actually does.
You misunderstand me. I guess I'll have to spell it out: if a patient is a donor in a country/state that has opt in (or a separate form or whatever California has) then, there will be a fewer of them. This scarcity makes them that much more valuable and hence the greater likelihood of these (fictional) vampiric medicos hanging around the bedside.
Woah, back up, cowboy. Nowhere did I say they get to take the organs if there is no consent. If the "bum" has no next of kin, the donor procurement team still has to determine organ donation status--which exists not only on driver's licenses but also on state government-issued IDs, one or the other of which the "bum" would most likely have. And in the real world "whipping out a scalpel" simply not done (fiction to the contrary).
Everything I've posted is about getting people to sign up. I don't know where you got the stripping away of rights thing.
Opt out and/or preferential treatment for donors like Israel would go a long way to increasing donations.
This California bill is better than nothing though because it forces applicants to make a decision which opting in does not do.
This California bill is better than nothing though because it forces applicants to make a decision which opting in does not do.
Wow. Big hairy straw dog---make up a claim and then firmly stand in opposition. Anti-freedom? What are you smoking?
You and Pyth can take your organs to the grave if you want. Stop promoting the idea that the"government" wants your organs and owns your organs. That's complete BS. All you are required to do is make a decision one way or the other, because at the time of death it's too late to get into a deep, philosophical discussion of the Rights of Man, the Everlasting, and Your Contributions to Society. Is that hard? Don't like the pressure? Agree this time and change your mind the next time, no one cares. Change back the time after that--again, no one cares; they would just like to know your intentions in advance.
all organ donation should be OPT-OUT... and take a ton of difficult paperwork to actually opt out of.
1) Organ donation in all states should be opt-out
2) to get an organ, you should have to be on the donor list.
and that's it.
if anyone reading this isn't an organ donor... then you are a selfish *******. it's just that simple.
Way to respect other people's wishes/beliefs!
You are wrong in every possible way.
First of all, your "rape" example (which I can't believe I am about to dignify) does not apply. Sex is not a requirement to life, as organs are. That girl is not going to die anyways/already dead if nothing happens, as most organ donors are. Most importantly, she will still live afterwards, unlike most organ donations. And she didn't consent, as organ donors or their families do.
Asking people to make a decision about organ donation is NOT forcing anyone into anything. Neither is defaulting into yes. The family will always be able to say no. Its just that if you want to opt out, you have to make your voice heard. And given the respect for the dying our culture has, I doubt much more will be needed.
Free market is the worst way to go. Organ donation is not a "high volume" procedure. We aren't talking heart bypass. This is a specalized procedure. The costs cannot really go down; it takes transplant surgeons and teams. Sure it might go "down" but not enough to make it affordable for everyone. 5000 is NOTHING for a surgical cost (laughable for a transplant). And thats still a lot of money.
No ones talking about "taking" or "stepping in". The whole point is to raise awareness and make people decide ahead of time. Many people will say yest. If you feel so strongly about it, opt-out. It will never be mandatory. Even an opt in program is not a "violation of rights"...if you are dead, your next of kin can always stop it.
"If an action REQUIRES consent to be legal, then said consent can NEVER be IMPLIED"- that doesn't apply for emergencies. Some emergency procedures can be performed without consent because its better to save someones life than risk letting them die because of some belief, religious or otherwise. Again, only in emergencies.
Also, I think ralfthedog is some sort of monster. Buy organs from the 3rd world? Sure I see NO ethical or legal conflicts there. Or potential for abuse. Heres a better idea for you: instead of having an abortion, those babies should be born (and the mom paid of course), then shipped to a farm where they will be raised for organs. What do you think ralf?
I sensed quite a bit of sarcasm in ralf's post... Pretty sure there was no seriousness there.