Organ donation is based on recently dead people. Heart, liver, kidneys, eyes etc are all up for grabs as soon as possible
I learned yesterday that a heart has a shelf life of about 6 hours and liver is 12
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...