Should organ donors be put further up the list for transplants?

[BiscuitTrouser]

I recently did a debate at school on the way to handle organ donation. The idea put forward was to basically reward donors with a higher placement on the transplant list if they ever needed an organ.

I really didnt know what to make of this. Im an organ donor so maybe im bias but i cant think of why its unfair, it just seems it. After all how can you feel "entitled" to a charitable donation you dont want to make yourself despite the fact it costs nothing. This was the reason i became a donor anyway, it felt hypocritical if i were to get sick and "expect" organs when i myself wouldnt do the same for another person. I'm kind of on the fence here. Anyway its relevent because Isreal (apparently not recently) took this stance, and many orthodox Jews were upset because, as a sect that takes organs but doesnt give them, they were at a disadvantage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8416443.stm

Anyway do you think organ donors should get any privalage at all? Are you an organ donor? What are you donating.

I'm donating everything but my eyes, I have very bad astigmatism so my non spherical eyes are worthless. Everything else is up for grabs though.

EDIT: Everyone can agree that the organs go to those who need them, but with adults who have a year to live the risks are weighed up, eg do they drink/smoke/exercise, will the organs be damaged by miscare? The idea is that if two people tie the organ donors take priority.

 

[Lucem712]

Hm....well, that's hard to say... Even though I'm an organ donor if I needed something I'm not quite sure how I'd feel if I was above some little kid with cancer. (Though, that can happen even I'm not in the Organ express lane)

I don't want any special treatment cos I don't feel the need to hold onto my organs, but that's just me. I think the organ reception should be based on need and not when you got sick, if it's not already that way.

 

[Soviet Steve]

I'd say the organs should go to those who need them the most urgently.

 

[Thaluikhain]

No point, really. People tend not to expect to need organs, or to die and donate theirs.

I would go for an opt out system, rather than an opt in. A lot of people aren't organ donors not because they particularly object, but because they can't be bothered making the decision and signing a form. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with setting the default for those people to be the other way around, as long as they can opt out.

Oh, and get rid of the family veto, or have that instead of the person's own decision, not both.

 

[Chanel Tompkins]

No point, really. People tend not to expect to need organs, or to die and donate theirs.

I would go for an opt out system, rather than an opt in. A lot of people aren't organ donors not because they particularly object, but because they can't be bothered making the decision and signing a form. IMHO, there's nothing wrong with setting the default for those people to be the other way around, as long as they can opt out.

Oh, and get rid of the family veto, or have that instead of the person's own decision, not both.

I would agree with this. I'd rather have a system where I signed a form to get out, not in. It'd be better overall, I think. More organs to go around. I don't think I'd agree with taking away family veto though...you'd have to keep it for minors and dependent adults (the mentally handicapped, etc.) at least, since legally it's the family's right to decide for them. Maybe there could be a legal form or override for legal adults.

 

[Esotera]

Within reason. I think this would only work in an opt-out system - if you have specifically said before that you don't want to donate organs, and there is another patient who wants to donate their organs, and both are at similar risks, I'd pick the person who hadn't opted out.

Then again, I'm not a doctor and am aware that there are many ethical arguments against this.

 

[Hoiafar]

Opt-out is not okay. It forces people to do things that they might not be willing to do. The again, one could argue, that once a body is dead it no longer has any value as a human, and that as long as the shell of the body remains, no sentimental harm would have been done.
Even with this argument in mind, opt-out is pretty much like forcing everyone to sign a form if they wish to own their own body.
It's not okay, anywhere.

Anyways, on to the more on topic, ontopicness. Do I think that donors should be put further up the list?
No. Simply because it would turn into an organ trading machine.
You donate an organ simply in the hopes of being put before some other bloke. I think transplant lists should be controlled by which condition the patient is in, not whether or not you give up a part of your body, something a lot of people feel very apprehensive about due to belief or simple preferences.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

The thing is, for most organs (maybe even all, I'm not completely sure), there isn't really a list saying who gets an organ first. Firstly, an organ that is suitable for donation isn't going to be compatible with a majority of patients, and even if it is, it's usually a better match for one patient than another. If there are two relatively equal matches, then it goes to who needs it the most, which may or may not be the person that has been waiting the longest for it.

The idea that certain people should get higher priority of organs for nonmedical reasons goes against how the organ donation system usually works.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Opt-out is not okay. It forces people to do things that they might not be willing to do. The again, one could argue, that once a body is dead it no longer has any value as a human, and that as long as the shell of the body remains, no sentimental harm would have been done.
Even with this argument in mind, opt-out is pretty much like forcing everyone to sign a form if they wish to own their own body.
It's not okay, anywhere.

How is that different from the person not getting the burial they want? For some people, getting cremated instead of buried would be at least as bad, they'd have to make sure their wishes were known beforehand to get the right one.

 

[woodwalker]

Well, considering the fact that I am an organ donor because it was cheaper for me to get my license, I'd say two things about this:
(1)It is probably not fair because you will be dead when you give up your organs, so you don't really lose anything.
(2)How many other people are organ donors because it was cheaper?

 

[Kermi]

I'm an organ donor, but I don't think an opt-out system is right. Choosing to let people take your organs to use is a choice you should make, not one that is made for you. Forcing people to opt-out plays to their guilt, because you have to basically say "I'm taking my organs away from you" as opposed to saying "I don't want people to take my organs". There's a difference there and it's an important one.

I also don't think organ donors should be higher on the list, but that's because the organs should go to people who need them the most or have been waiting the longest, regardless of circumstances. It's about supposed to be about saving the most lives.

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

When I saw the title I thought you were gonna go in a different direction then who is more deserving. This is what I thought you were gonna say, but I guess it's my own idea with some inspiration:

Organ donors should take priority because if they die, the organs would be donated and therefore reused.

Logically, that kinda makes an astounding amount of sense to me. Though this is a matter of life and death, I don't really want to say who is more deserving of life.

 

[Arakasi]

If it's a tie, and one is a donor and one isn't, then the donor should get it.
In theory.
One could also say that the other guy should get it so that the donor could die sooner to pass organs to other people. But one who says that deserves to be slapped.

 

[chimeracreator]

Yep, organ donors should get that weighted into these decisions. It should never be the deciding factor in cases where life expectancy after the transfer is vastly different or where these is some other major medical need, but an organ donor is willing to contribute something to the system while a non-donor is just mooching off of it. So yes, reward the people who are willing to put in their several pounds of flesh.

I also agree with the stance that it should be a strictly opt-in system. Having it any other way raises some extremely dangerous constitutional issues.

 

[manic_depressive13]

I don't think people's lives should be prioritised according to whether they ticked a shitty little box on their drivers lisence. Having said that, I think people who refuse to donate their organs are dicks. People shouldn't even have an option. When someone dies, any usable organs should be harvested. The rest of the body can then be disposed of in any way the family chooses.