I thought all donors had to be living with a beating heart, are deceased non-heartbeat donors viable for some subset of organ transplants? How does this work exactly?
Motorcycles are sometimes called "donorcycles" because of the high likelihood that any given crash will be fatal, and that the rider is young and healthy and thus a highly desirable source of transplant material.
While fatalities per passenger-mile may be 24x cars (as below), you have to realize that the population riding motorcycles in the U.S. is not a random sampling. These people aren't trying to get around, they're acting out an image. For that behavior I don't blame them, but it is what it is.
Anecdotally, a little less than half of U.S. motorcyclists are fat, bald, drunk dudes riding Harleys or Harley look-alikes with the legal minimum protective gear (which in some states is none at all), while another little less than half are young, shirtless dudes on sportbikes. To their credit, they are wearing full-face helmets (because you can't go 200mph without one). Also, something like half of motorcycle fatalities involve alcohol[0]. Yikes.
<10% of motorcyclists are riding reasonable, well-maintained bikes with a modicum of skill and all of the proper protective gear.
So while motorcycling qua motorcycling may be more dangerous than driving a car per vehicle-mile, the difference is probably a lot smaller when controlling for differences in the behavior of people doing it. To put it in perspective, in the U.S., if motorcycling is ~30x deaths per vehicle mile compared to cars, bicycling is ~20x (though you do get exercise, which extends your life). And miles per motorcycle (or bicycle) are << miles per car per year in the U.S. People don't realize, but moving to the suburbs and driving everywhere vs. living in the city is taking the same sort of risk one might by motorcycling. </rant>
Florida motorcyclists are not generally required to wear helmets. Therefore they more efficiently get to the "donor" stage.
Riding a motorbike is amazing fun, but if you ride long enough, something terrible will happen. Every rider has a story of an accident. Although you are more manoeuvrable than a car, can get out ahead of traffic, are smaller, can see more, and are more keenly alert... a little tap you'd hardly notice in a car can kill you.
In a car you tend to hurt other people including any kids, etc that may be along for the ride.
As per sibling comment, maybe the only reason they are tolerated is that the risk is statistically largely to the rider themselves.
IE the person taking the risk is largely the target of the consequences.
If motorcycles somehow magically penetrated into peoples cars in a crash I think people would rule them out pretty quick.
Only by ghouls.
But calling names the other way won't help and I can see why the donorcycle term has stuck. There is enough of an element of truth to make it stick.
I learned yesterday that a heart has a shelf life of about 6 hours and liver is 12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_donation#Opt-in_versus_o...
Another fun fact. The US government spends more on dialysis than the budget for NASA.
Which is precisely the reason such sales are outlawed worldwide.
Are Iranian kidney donors the ones getting scammed?
If we enticed poor people to sell their kidneys, some percentage of them would wind up needing kidneys again without an ability to pay for them.
This turns into a kidney marketplace where the rich win out over the poor.
FCFS with triage based on need, immunocompatibility, and health outcome is the most equitable model.
Diabetes and uncontrolled high blood pressure are the top cause of kidney failure. These two conditions are far more common in the poor, and far more likely to be poorly managed.
Also if the price of a kidney relative to median income in the U.S. was similar to Iran, then a kidney would cost $15,000. This is expensive but still far cheaper than dialysis. And there is no reason an ACA plan or Medicaid wouldn't pay for it.
In theory. In practice rich people can jump ahead the line no matter what system. I.e. Steve Jobs and the liver that went to waste.
https://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/24/liver.transplant.prior...
Same could be said for gambling and sales tax.
Sadly, economics dictate a lot of people's health is going to be like. Living/Work conditions lifestyle, diet are all influenced by wealth.
Poor people work most of the dirty and unhealthy jobs that significantly cut short life spans. Wealth and lifespans are known to be strongly correlated.
As countries we are perfectly comfortable reserving vaccines blocking poor countries with patents, polluting a lot more or exploiting their labor in terrible conditions we wouldn't tolerate. Compared to what we are willing to accept already this doesn't seem worse.
If a commercial system could save more lives(probably more likely rich) it is not that much worse for poor than it already is.
I recently contracted a shiga toxin producing E. coli strain which was cultured from my bowels. I also cultured entericocci (ETEC) but that’s not relevant to the discussion. I am lucky Shiga toxin E. coli (remember this famous Jack In The Box Breakout, FTW https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Jack_in_the_Box_E._coli... ) did not affect my kidneys.
I am a dual US|European Union (Croatian) national. Croatia has one of the highest (ethical) transplant rates in the world. Let it be known that I would get it in Croatia over the USA.
If it did, heart transplants wouldn’t work at all.
I've heard it said that "you're not dead until you're warm and dead", but 6-12 hours doesn't seem like a lot of time, to make sure you're not coming back.
e.g., I drown in an icy pond, and I'm found after 5 hours. I might be revived, I might not...but the heart only has an hour before it's toast.
The longest human is known to be revived is only in the range 10-15 minutes. Brain damage is quite likely at this point. The longest for an animal is for cat - 1 Hour.
Only clinically dead people are eligible for organ transplantation
> Reduced body temperature, or therapeutic hypothermia, during clinical death slows the rate of injury accumulation, and extends the time period during which clinical death can be survived. The decrease in the rate of injury can be approximated by the Q10 rule, which states that the rate of biochemical reactions decreases by a factor of two for every 10 °C reduction in temperature. As a result, humans can sometimes survive periods of clinical death exceeding one hour at temperatures below 20 °C.[20] The prognosis is improved if clinical death is caused by hypothermia rather than occurring prior to it; in 1999, 29-year-old Swedish woman Anna Bågenholm spent 80 minutes trapped in ice and survived with a near full recovery from a 13.7 °C core body temperature. It is said in emergency medicine that "nobody is dead until they are warm and dead."[21] In animal studies, up to three hours of clinical death can be survived at temperatures near 0 °C.[22][23]
I'd rather not be harvested too quickly, when I could have been revived without issue.
Also even if revied would you even want to ? While anna as an exception didn't suffer from brain damage , it is likely, and even she had long term issues with nerve function paralysis etc.
Anna and other similar cases are a extreme rarity. policy shouldn't be made basis a one in a million chance, that's why we have vaccines enforced for example.
You can always opt-out or not opt-in depending in on jurisdiction I am sure.
There are plenty of people who opt for cryogenic storage after they die in the hope technology will evolve to revive them. That's natural step to this argument in a way , what if I could be revived some day even if not today ?
Ultimately handling life and death are intensely personal choices.
Well, that's the thing. "warm and dead" is above and beyond the criteria you referenced earlier, "clinical death". I'd hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. It doesn't seem like it from what I've seen.
And, the cooling factor in brain damage prevention is becoming more widely known these days. Anna wasn't just a fluke.
According to that article, clinical death != warm and dead.
[0] is the Australian College of Intensive Care guidelines on organ harvesting. There are strict criteria around when a person is considered dead and for organ donation that means brain death.
I’m not sure what you’re worried about, this was easily discoverable - clinical death is not the criteria that is used for the determination of organ donation eligibility
[0] https://csds.qld.edu.au/sdc/Provectus/ELI/Module%202%20-%20O...
No, I'm asking a question and having a discussion, and you decided to jump in with your hostile skepticism that's completely unwarranted. Chill out.
No, there's a tone of 'exactly how dead is dead'. If you look at the other commenter, sometimes doctors jump the gun.
> far from ‘I’m interested in this topic and would like to have a discussion to learn more’ as a QAnon follower is from a PhD student
Congrats, you've managed to drag in completely unrelated politics.
You're assuming the worst of me. You're comparing me to a Qanon follower, apparently. You're giving (unfounded) credit to a commenter who called me a 'covid vaccine denier'. Seems like you're implying that I'm not acting in good faith.
It's like you're looking for people that fit your preconceptions, and shoehorning me into it. That's prejudice, plain and simple. Chill out.
No, they don't - you made a misunderstanding which perpetuated a line of questioning which isn't a practical concern. Brain Death + other criteria depending on jurisdiction is a pre-requisite for cadaveric organ donation
As to the rest, you have approached this from the perspective of 'prove to me that X doesn't happen' which is perilously close to that of the antivax/antiscience brigades.
I apologise for thinking the worst of you but I wasn't the only one which perhaps reflects on the approach you have taken in your line of questioning in these highly polarised times
> you have approached this from the perspective of 'prove to me that X doesn't happen'
There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I'm thinking of buying a power tool, then 'prove to me that <rapid unplanned disassembly> doesn't happen' is an appropriate tone, and exactly the kind of skeptical questioning that should take place: it's my problem if the problem happens.
I don't care what kind of political climate we're in; you don't get to tell me what kinds of questions I'm not supposed to ask.
Doctors occasionally jump the gun: https://www.fox6now.com/news/father-accused-in-hours-long-st...