A man on his way to be taken off of lifesupport so his organs can be used.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Catfish

Religious motives can go to hell

I would not be the one opposing that too much, but fact is that the legal codices of the Western world guarantee the free and unhindered practicing of faith and religion and even bows to special interest demands from these groups if they only get noisy enough and numerous enough. We bend the animal protection law on behalf of Jewish and Muhameddan faith-founded demands, for example. We allow mutilation of children for religious reasons, although premeditaded bodily injury is a punishable offence in the penalty code.



If sombody's faith demands him to not allow organ donating, but organ donation is declared a law as Neal wants it - what then? You then have a formidable culture clash between religion on the oen side and fascism on the other side. Maybe that is good - two monsters hanging at each others throat. Problem is I am sitting right in the midst of the crunch.



A donation is never mandatory, then it would not be a donation, but somebody else'S claim of any kind and format, may it be legal or illegal, natural or not - and having claim and asking for donation, well, are two different things. I wonder why this difference must even be explained. Its obvious. Give up the volunatriness, and the idea and definition of donating has been thrown out of the window all together.



Too many people here just do not think it to the end. And that is the best way to get either a tyrannic state, or bad laws, or both.


No state, no society, no individual has claim for your body without giving up indispensable pillars of a liberal, free order basing on the philosophical fundament of the ancient Greek heritage and modern definition of humanism. Nobody lives or must live for the sake of the benefit of somebody else. That would be slavery. Any willingness to live like that, must be allowed - but must form up all by itself, voluntarily.



However, what can be demanded, is reciprocity. Who wants to take something, must be willing to give back equally. If he refuses the latter, he has no right to demand the first. No harvesting without sowing first.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

No state, no society, no individual has claim for your body without giving up indispensable pillars of a liberal, free order basing on the philosophical fundament of the ancient Greek heritage and modern definition of humanism.

Amen. Wait .. err sorry I mean 'here here'.

But yes I agree with that statement.

[Dowly]

Ok, I gotta know. Is it "here here" or "hear hear"? And why? They both make sense to me, though the latter seems more appropriate when you are in agreement with someone (as in "hear/listen to what he/she is saying").

[Jimbuna]

Hear, hear is an expression used as a short, repeated form of hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.

[Dowly]

Thank you, Mr. Wikipedia.

[u crank]

You are right Jim. I stand corrected.

[Dowly]

Though, I'm interested where the "here here" has come from, since I see a lot of people misspelling it on various forums. Is it something that was/is used or just a misspelling?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Though, I'm interested where the "here here" has come from, since I see a lot of people misspelling it on various forums. Is it something that was/is used or just a misspelling?

Well in my case it was a misspelling. I just never thought about it and my guess that is a common mistake.

It will never happen again.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Hear, hear is an expression used as a short, repeated form of hear him. It represents a listener's agreement with the point being made by a speaker.

Is it different from Harrumph Harrumph?

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neal, you maybe underestimate or ignore this one thing. You cannot transplant organs from a really already dead body. Th body must still be alive when you take them. And that means you actively end this life.

According to the American Transplant Foundation organs that can be donated after death are the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas and small intestines. Tissues include corneas, skin, veins, heart valves, tendons, ligaments and bones.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by August

According to the American Transplant Foundation organs that can be donated after death are the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas and small intestines. Tissues include corneas, skin, veins, heart valves, tendons, ligaments and bones.

I'll chime in. I don't want to talk about it in detail. I just made this decision within the last 24 hours. Not everything is useful and it depends how healthy the donator is. It really depends on if they are donating for transplant or for science(training/learning). The science side is totally different. In my opinion, the main benefit is, if the donator had a problem (health issue/ defect of some sort), then there is so much benefit to studying them (the organs). If it gives the doctor more/better data to make a future decision(s), then I'm totally for it.


Plus, you need hands on material to train future doctors. This is just crazy, because I literally just talked to my brother about this (he's a medical doctor.)

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

According to the American Transplant Foundation organs that can be donated after death are the heart, liver, kidneys, lungs, pancreas and small intestines. Tissues include corneas, skin, veins, heart valves, tendons, ligaments and bones.

Yes, but what I try to say is that the death criterion is questionable and has been tailored several times to follow the demands of transplantation medicine as it evolved over the years and decades. The criterion got softened up. Fact is that while the brain may be without any traces of activity, several budy functiosn and metavblostzic fuinctiosn still can persist, no matter wqhether blood coiruclaiton is artifically enabled or runs naturally by itself. And only from such a still active body organs can be used for transplantation. If these "background functions" have come to an end as well, transplanting organs from it is no more possible. And that is why the brain death criterion has been established. It followed the demands and needs of progress in transplantation medicine.



It is tried very hard to hide this fact from public perception, because they - probably rightfully - assume that then many people would rethink their willingness to doinate.



Do not trust any lobby organisation on this. Your Transplant Forundation has an interest not to scare people or to raise their doubts, but to convince people. Its the same ovber here.


The criticvism of the brian detah as the criterion to define "death" is slwoly growing nayway amongst doctors. Many make experiences that question the exclusive validity of this and only this criterion. Morer and morte death also is understood a snot a fixed point in time before which we are alive and beyond which we are dead, but as a transition process over a longer time period. But these views are in strict opposition oif the demands and needs of transplantation mediicne, and would also raise ethical questions an dlegal quesitons that transplantation meidicne cannot answer in order to continue with business as usual.



I see it like this: if you donate your organs, you do not speak about what ir beign done to dead matter tha once held your life and mind, but you tlak about saqcrificiong a little - or long! - ammount of your life span, you shorten your life because you weigh your life quality remaining against the lifespan the receiver may benefit from if gaining it. And there are many scenarios where thse comparison, this assessment may justify yourf deicison to go a bit ealrier to allow another one much m ore time.



BUT THIS DECISION MUST BE YOUR DECISION, THE DONORS DECISION, and voluntarily so. Also, other factors and arguments may weigh in in the donor'S deicison as well. It does not matter of somebody else underdstand them, for it is not about this other peron'S life, but the donor'S life. He and he alone has the right to make this decision, free, and unpressed.



Organ donation can only be had at shortening the donor'S life artificially, no mjmatter how his life quality or remaining natural lifetime may be. The donor cannot be fully dead to donate organs - that is the important detail they try very hard to hide from public information. It opens a pandora's box of ethical and legal implications, obviously, but in the end it is indeed euthanasia at the end of his life. Only the donor himself can decide to opt for this.


I personally also oppose the refused freedom of people to end their lives voluntarily. Nobody has a right to senetence somebody else to a life that this somebody does not want. Courts have no right to deny people who want to die the right to end their lives, too. I must not ask for permission to die, if that is what I want. I have an inborn, natural right to end my life, if that is what I want. Like I have a right to own my body or to breath the air I need. An enforced or even just opt-out model of donating organs, is a contradiction to this refused freedom of msuicide. State even reserves the right to send you into psychiatry if you try to kill yourself, mind you. Its slippery ground. As a posyhcologist I know that suciide also can result from tem porary mental confusion and psychologicla isorders indeed, and one can argue that the others have an ethical mandate to chekc whether somebody want sot die diue to being mentally ill or being desperate or depressive, or wnats to end becasue he thinks he is old, suffers pain, or doe snot want to be a burden at high age or whatever. But I find it impossible to formulate any general blueprints for any rights by society or the state to hinder people from committing suicide no matter what circumstances. It is a situaiti nw here ever yisngle case always has to be chekced and assessed individually, even if that takes time and makes more work. You cannot formulate a general, always valid right to hinder people that want to die and are certain of it.



And can we ever be certain that somebody is certain of his death wish, or is just sufferign from desease, or juvenile immaturity? Nobody can really look into soembody else, no matter how close the other his. We can move close to each other as much as we want - sooner or latter we reahc the piojnt where ther eis only space for just one, and there we all are alone with yourselves again.


Be hesitent to enforce your sentence of living and dying easily on others. Its all a very, very perosnal deicison here. The needs of others, or an industry, are no argument here, sorry. That can lead to bitter outcomesl, yes. As humans in an imperfect world, we have to live with that. Its the price we have to pay for being human. Suffering can be fought against, yes. But if we push this fight too selfrightously and too far, we only create new suffering by this.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

I'll chime in. I don't want to talk about it in detail. I just made this decision within the last 24 hours. Not everything is useful and it depends how healthy the donator is. It really depends on if they are donating for transplant or for science(training/learning). The science side is totally different. In my opinion, the main benefit is, if the donator had a problem (health issue/ defect of some sort), then there is so much benefit to studying them (the organs). If it gives the doctor more/better data to make a future decision(s), then I'm totally for it.


Plus, you need hands on material to train future doctors. This is just crazy, because I literally just talked to my brother about this (he's a medical doctor.)

You talk about autopsy, which is something very different. Dont mix autopsy with organ donation. For an autopsy the body can be dead since long, and must be dead indeed (else it would be called murder). For organ donation, only the brain can be dead, but certain background functions of the body and metabolisjm still must be active, and the blood must still be circulating, artificially (machine) or all by itself. The time window is very short. Cell intoxication starts very quickly, thats why the organs must be separated very quickly and from a still living body.

And we know examples of just braindead people returning to life, and coma patients showing no brain activity usually nevertheless suddenly reacting to external stimuli - with activity in attributed brain areals. Brain death as a criterion for "totally dead" is not approprioate. And that is the problem and that is where the conflict with organ transplantation arises.

More and more doctors and medical scientists quesiton the brain death criterion for these many reasons indeed. Their numbers grew slowly, but constantly.

That so much money is in organ donation, doe snot help to defuse the situation. Is an industry, do not be mistaken. And quite some of it lies in the shades.

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You talk about autopsy, which is something very different. Dont mix autopsy with organ donation. For an autopsy the body can be dead since long, and must be dead indeed (else it would be called murder). For organ donation, only the brain can be dead, but certain background functions of the body and metabolisjm still must be active, and the blood must still be circulating, artificially (machine) or all by itself. The time window is very short. Cell intoxication starts very quickly, thats why the organs must be separated very quickly and from a still living body.

And we know examples of just braindead people returning to life, and coma patients showing no brain activity usually nevertheless suddenly reacting to external stimuli - with activity in attributed brain areals. Brain death as a criterion for "totally dead" is not approprioate. And that is the problem and that is where the conflict with organ transplantation arises.

More and more doctors and medical scientists quesiton the brain death criterion for these many reasons indeed. Their numbers grew slowly, but constantly.

That so much money is in organ donation, doe snot help to defuse the situation. Is an industry, do not be mistaken. And quite some of it lies in the shades.

Sadly, I'm an expert on this now. The million dollar/Euro question is at what point/ how do you want to define death. There are too many factors for me.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

Sadly, I'm an expert on this now. The million dollar/Euro question is at what point/ how do you want to define death. There are too many factors for me.

Exactly. I was for some time engaged in a project on clinical and psychological research in thanatology, focussing on NDEs, and psychological reactions of dying patients to the knowedge they are dying, and the reacitons of their social environment to that. That is very long time ago, immediately after university, but I talked about these things a lot with two doctors who also were part in this project. What I say about organ donation is mostly founded by what they told me about it, and is over twenty years ago. But since then I repeatedly have read about the matter and saw the one or the other documentaiton as well, only strengthening the doubts that these two medical experts expressed already in the past. Nothing of what I say is that brandnew at all. Since then, doubts in the usefulness of the exclusive validity of brain death as the only death criterion have just grown.



Reading books like the Bardo Thödol makes thinking about this matter even more complicated. It describes a quite complex transition period during the dying process (and later, incarnation, but lets leave that out here).


If I read it right from your brief hint, you have had your recent experiences in real life with parts of what is being talked about in this thread. If so, I do not ask further, but wish you courage, and stamina - but before that, give the sadness its time as well, even if it hurts. Sadness has its rights, too, and exists for a reason. Sounds like a cliche, but is true. Best wishes.