Organ Donation

[elSicomoro]

I originally posted a story from this past week's Philadelphia Inquirer (which I'll put back up later), but it actually inspired me to start a thread I've been thinking about for some time now. We discussed this a little bit in a previous thread.

Organ Donation...it has become a rather personal issue to me in the past year. You've probably seen the link in my sig line. In many US states, you are asked whether you wish to be an organ donor, and it is noted on your DL. (In Missouri, you sign the back of your DL and have two witnesses sign as well.)

I can't stress enough to people how important it is just to THINK about becoming an organ donor. Certainly, there are some out there who have personal concerns with donating, but I think it's incredibly important to give it some serious thought.

The US Department of Health and Human Services has a great website set up, which includes a good FAQ. Here are some other good sites:

Transweb

Coalition on Donation

United Network for Organ Sharing

Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network

National Minority Organ Tissue Transplantation Education Program

--
So, why should you donate your organs?

--If you die and choose burial, your organs are going to rot. Why not give someone an opportunity to continue their life? Not to mention, you won't be in any pain if you donate upon death.

--Donation is not banned by most major religions. In fact, many of them encourage it. (Transweb)

--Donating your organs will not affect an open-casket funeral. (US Dept. of HHS)

--16 people die waiting for a new organ every day. (US Dept. of HHS)

--85,000 people are currently waiting for an organ, almost 65% of those for a kidney. (OPTN)

--Donation rates are particularly low for minorities, and some diseases that could lead to transplantation (such as diabetes) are more prevalent among minorities. (OPTN and US Dept. of HHS)

--
Feel free to share your own thoughts or concerns here.

[elSicomoro]

This story appeared in Thursday's Philadelphia Inquirer, but I'm posting it here b/c it will probably be archived this coming week. My comments are below the story.

The original URL is: http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/n...on/3500469.htm

--
AMA: Cash for organs should be researched

Some doctors disagree, saying it is unethical to even study that option, despite an acute need.

By Lindsey Tanner
Associated Press

CHICAGO - The American Medical Association yesterday called for research into whether financial payments would ease the nation's critical shortage of transplant organs.

The AMA's policy-making House of Delegates voted at its annual meeting to adopt the measure against the recommendation of a committee, which heard from doctors Sunday who said that such payments would be unethical and that even studying them would cheapen the value of organ donation.

The measure involves organs from cadavers, not living donors, and supports research into payments such as reimbursement for funeral expenses.

Testimony that appeared to sway the delegates yesterday included a plea from Dr. Phil Berry Jr. of Dallas, who said he would be dead if he had not received an organ transplant 16 years ago to replace a liver ravaged by hepatitis B.

His lifesaver, a 32-year-old woman who died of a brain aneurysm, had indicated before her death that she wanted to be an organ donor.

"In a perfect world, altruism would be all that would be needed" to encourage more organ donation, Berry, 65, told the delegates. "The fact is that we're losing the battle."

In the last decade, the number of organs donated nationwide annually has stayed fairly steady at 5,000 to 6,000, while the number of people who need transplants has jumped from about 20,000 to 80,000, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.

Last year, about 6,000 people died while on the U.S. transplant waiting list, according to the network.

Federal law prohibits financial incentives for organ donation, and research on the issue could require congressional waivers.

The AMA would not finance any research under the measure, but its voice is influential in Washington and it is now on record as endorsing such studies.

University of Pennsylvania bioethicist Arthur Caplan said the move could end up backfiring, because some people worry that financial incentives will make money-hungry relatives less likely to seek aggressive treatment for them if they become gravely ill.

Also yesterday, the AMA adopted a measure asking it to support requiring pharmacies to get patients' written permission before selling their personal data to drug companies for marketing purposes.

The delegates rejected a measure that asked the AMA to speak out against drug companies' direct-to-consumer marketing, such as television and magazine ads for prescription drugs.
--

Although there is a need for more organs, the idea of paying for organs is, IMO, an incredibly bad idea.

It could easily create a system of haves and have-nots. Insurance companies may be unwilling to cover the cost of actually purchasing an organ. Those who are unable to pay for an organ could lose out. It could throw the UNOS lists into chaos, with the people at the top of the lists (those who need new organs the most) not necessarily receiving them. There is also the possibility that families of those whose organs are being donated could withhold the donation, if they do not feel they are being adequately compensated (particularly in the case of a family donating their minor child's organs).

From a more personal point of view, Rho would be completely fucked. There is no way we could afford to buy a kidney. Based on the assumption that the Commonwealth would want to minimize health costs, I doubt that they'd be willing to buy an organ for Rho.

I think it's more important to focus on organ donor awareness. I remember seeing a spike in awareness commercials and what not in the mid-90s...now that seems to have gone by the wayside. The awareness has to be kept out there without being saturating, sorta like breast cancer, or registering to vote.