Sorry, Iflitifloat but this one of the reasons why…….

[DofB5]

Posted: 10/5/04 at 7:22pm

I am not listed as an organ donor.

I know you believe in it but....

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/05/organ.death.ap/index.html


"I think it (the organ donation) was done in good faith. ... But the standard has me thinking about taking the organ donation card off my license," Young said. "I don't mind donating organs if I'm dead, but I want to be dead first."

I agree 100%.

D

[etoile]

Posted: 10/5/04 at 7:42pm

Even a cynical, skeptical, conspiratorial misanthrope as myself can see the value of organ donations. I discount urban legends and realize that more often than not, most coroners are nothing more than political hacks. Many communities don't even require medical training as a prerequisite to hold the office.

I'm willing to blindly put my trust in a physician who vows to first do no harm, and believe that he will take no organ before its time.

Updated On: 10/5/04 at 07:42 PM

[shesings]

Posted: 10/5/04 at 7:45pm

I had a friend who put on her donor card they could have anything but her eyes. Her reasoning? Her eyes were so beautiful. Makes sense right?!? I would think that I would want to pass something so beautiful on to others, but thats just me!

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/5/04 at 9:06pm

That is an unfortunate story for multiple reasons. The "victim" had testing done that demonstrated brain death at two different institutions, but the story does not detail what the problem was with the testing. As a transplant professional, I can fill in some of the blanks and draw conclusions as to what happened...far beyond the scope of what can be discussed here. I would be willing to bet that when the story unfolds, this will be one of those "definition of brain death" cases, and I will be very interested in viewing the record of the judge in this case. And the really sad thing is the damage it will do in terms of people considering donation. I'm not arguing on behalf of what was or wasn't done until I know the facts, but it's important to recognize that the organs weren't taken from someone who was going to recover, in any way, shape, or form.

The true tragedy here is that someone who needs an organ to stay alive, will probably not get one because of the impact of this one occurance.

When I read something like your statement, DofB5, I always hope that someone, like you, who is not willing to donate organs would also decline a transplant if you were suddenly to need one. Funny how it never seems to work that way, though. People who wouldn't consider donating always seem willing to take when they are the ones in need...something that I have personally seen over and over and over again during my 22 years working in the field.

Updated On: 10/5/04 at 09:06 PM

[beacon1]

Posted: 10/5/04 at 10:47pm

Your last point is excellent. If you don't believe in having yours removed to give to another...then why take one from someone who you are afraid may not have been dead.

I'm a donor and have told all my relatives: Rip out anything that's usable, bury the rest. Once my spirit vacates my body...I won't be using or needing the parts for a while. And, when it comes time for the resurrection, I have full faith that the Lord won't have any problem getting my molecules to reassemble my physical body.

[BwayLover]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:29am

Wow, Iflitifloat, I had no idea you worked in this field. I now have even more respect for you.

I have had a donor card for about 6 years- I got it while I was in the Israeli army(for obvious reasons), even though some claim it's against the Jewish religion. I am all for donations, and I specified in my card that they can take anything after I die- anything that can help.

I understand this fear people have, but I also agree with your argument- a lot of people don't see it that way, though, which is unfortunate.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 1:50am

This is an unfortunate incident. Iflit, being our expert on the subject, hit the nail on the head, though. We can't let this one story stop the incredible transplant opportunities that save so many lives. I only hope that I am able to save another's life with my organs when the time comes. That is if they will have them.

Keep up the good work, flitty.

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 1:55am

Yeah, they will let you die if you have that on your card. Family members a dr and told me about that when I got my liscense.

He said that they will pay a little less attention if it looks bad enough that you wont make it just to get the organ.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 1:57am

I'm pretty sure being an organ donor is against Judaism- it's desecration of the corpse. That's why Israel is a big-time center of illegal organ purchases; there are simply never nearly enough organs. The shortage there makes the one here look laughable.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 6:41am

"Yeah, they will let you die if you have that on your card. Family members a dr and told me about that when I got my liscense.

He said that they will pay a little less attention if it looks bad enough that you wont make it just to get the organ."

Actually, the opposite is true. If anything, the problem...documented time and time again by labor-intensive review of the charts of patients who have died...demonstrate that far too many people who might possibly have been organ donors are never referred for evaluation, and the families are never even given the opportunity to consider donating the organs. You Dr. friend is astoundingly ignorant of the process, and if quoted correctly, shamefully irresponsible.

The process of donation doesn't occur quickly. Someone doesn't show up in the emergency room with a stroke or a gunshot wound to the head, for example, and have the doctors look at him, think he's in bad shape, and rip out his organs. That's a real Robin Cook scenario, and the good Dr. Cook is on the **** list of transplant professionals everywhere, and has been since the days of Coma.

The donation process is long, deliberate, tedious and involves an enormous number of people. When someone in a hospital is determine....usually after a period of many hours and usually, days, of treatment....to have suffered irreversible damage to their brain, they notify the local agency which oversees donation is notified. That agency sends out a specially trained individual, usually a nurse with advanced training, to whatever hospital ICU the patient is in. Charts are reviewed, families are talked with and the concept of brain death is explained and the option of donation offered should tests confirm brain death. In my state, tests to prove brain death are then performed, with the family's consent, and the same testing is repeated after a period of time...usually six to eight hours later. The specific tests (there are several that can be used which determine if there is electrical activity in the brain or blood flow to the brain....) are determined by the individual hospitals...not by someone at the donation agency with an agenda to "steal organs", btw.

When all the testing has been completed, the transplant centers in the region are then notified and the long process of trying to match the organs to the recipients begins. Shows like ER have contributed to the public's misperception. I recall watching an episode where Dr. Carter, still an intern, was eyeballing someone in the ER as a potential donor, took it upon himself to ask the family to donate the organs, hopped on the computer and looked up the waiting list (privacy laws, anyone?), and ...my favorite part, not....PICKED OUT a repient. My blood pressure shot up again just remember the scene. What a horrible inaccuracy. So glad to know my entire profession is unnecessary....who knew an intern had such capabilities?

At any rate, to believe your doctor friend, you would have to buy into the theory that people go into professions like medicine for sinister reasons. You would have to believe that someone like me works in a profession with long and irregular hours (and for a not-so-impressive salary) in order to "steal people's organs", You would have to believe that there is a grand scheme involving lots of doctors and nurses, family members, and multiple agencies who all plot together to rip a kidney out of it's "owner" before he is "dead".

The case that DofB brought up, will unfold to be about very scientific specifics about the nature and diagnosis of brain death. The homicide charge will never play. But that's not what people will remember. They will remember the initial story and charge. The damage has been done.

[DofB5]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 6:46am

Beg pardon but please reread:

"I don't mind donating organs if I'm dead, but I want to be dead first."

I agree 100%.

As far as getting a transplant, no one can say what they would do until faced with it. But my point was/is, I would not have a problem with being a donator IF I was sure I would, indeed, be dead (as in everything had been tried but there was NO hope) before I was harvested.

I can't fight my own personal belief that organs go to the highest bidder. If you’re the lucky match, hanging on a thread with little or no family to make a fuss/lawsuit and a rich person needs your heart, lung, liver, etc; your chance of recovery takes a major nose dive. And while they’re in there, why not take the leftovers? At that point, your going to complain? True or not, I can't help that feeling.

Anyway, I thought of you and that you might be interested to read the article when I saw it on CNN.

D

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 7:18am

D, if you choose not to sign a donor card, so be it. You have a deeply entrenched belief that nothing I say is going to change. That's fine.

And a word about donor cards. Although they could be considered legally binding documents, the consent of the next of kin is obtained. Should a case arise where the family chooses not to donate, even though the individual had signed a donor card, in my experience, the wishes of the family over ride the donor card.

The case in Colorado will turn out to be about something called "non-heartbeating donation", I am fairly certain. In rare cases where the brain damage is so profound as to be considered inconsistent with life, but there is still a blip of electrical activity on the EEG, the family is sometimes offered the opportunity to remove the patient from life support. At the point when the heart stops beating...on its own...surgery to recover organs for transplant, WITH the family's consent, can begin. My guess is that this case will come down to technicalities of someone cannulating the donor's artery (ie, inserted a needle into a blood vessel) before the heart beats had totally stopped. That's my best guess. The issue of non-heartbeating donors is controversial, but technical, and difficult to explain. At any rate, suffice it to say that should that be what this is about, the individual in question, was not a viable human being who would have even gone on to "live" as a vegetable were his organs not "ripped out of him".

Updated On: 10/6/04 at 07:18 AM

[bdwaygirl]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 7:32am

My cousin used to work for the Sharing Network, I think it's called, in NJ. I can't imagine having a job like that. My hats off to you Iflit.

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 7:36am

iflit, i ALWAYS sign the donor card, for just the reason you mentioned above... in order to take, i have to be willing to give... including my beautiful eyes...

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 9:11am

I obviously believe in organ donation. I try not to cram it down someone's throat, although sometimes my passion gets the better of me. To know hundreds of real people who are only alive and well today because someone else cared enough to donate ogans they wouldn't be using anymore, affords me a unique perspective that I realize isn't available to most people. I also experienced donation from the "other side" when my best friend suffered a ruptured aneurysm in her brain on her 45th birthday several years ago. I sat with her in the ICU of the local hospital from 7 in the morning until midnight. For most of that time, no one in the hospital knew that I had anything to do with transplants, professionally. I watched the donation process unfold, was sensitive to how it was presented and handled, watched the testing to confirm brain death. I never, for a second, got the feeling that anyone didn't try to save my friend so that she could donate her organs. Movies, TV, the media, and publications like The Enquirer, all contibute to suspicion regarding organ donation. And it IS a touchy subject because it makes people consider their own mortality.

I regret whenever something happens that undermines popular trust in the process and the people who have worked hard toward trying to balance someone's tragedy and loss (in the case of people working with the donor) and the pressing need for transplantable organs (in the case of the many thousands who are on the waiting list). If it turns out that the doctors and nurses in Colorado played fast and loose and did something that harmed the donor, I will be first in line to condemn them...I'll even be elbowing DofB out of the way. I just believe that the truth isn't going to turn out to be that lurid.

As I've mentioned before, I've worked in the field of transplantation (kidneys and pancreases)for more than two decades. There are many, many checks and balances in place to prevent organs from being distibuted unfairly. Being wealthy, or famous, or "connected", isn't going to improve one's position on the waiting list...which sometimes comes as a huge shock to the rich, famous, or connected.

Updated On: 10/6/04 at 09:11 AM

Posted: 10/6/04 at 10:57am

Well, my card says they can have anything but my heart. Because I belive that the heart is the way the spirit recognizes the body. Coincidentally, my heart has a weak left ventricle for which I have to take medication and they wouldn't want to use my heart anyway even though I'm AB+ blood type.

What needs to happen is (I'm going to drift from my poilitical party here) more stem cell and cloning research.

I really belive that with proper funding and support of research the following senario could be true.

Doctor: "Mr. Jones you're liver is shot and you're gonna die if we don put a new one in."

Mr. Jones: "Shyt!"

Doctor: "Not to worry, as soon as we got your test results back we took some DNA from one of your blood samples and started growing a liver for you in a dish. I t will be ready in a couple hours. We'll put you under, cut out your bad liver, put in the new one and all will be fine."

Mr. Jones: "What about rejection?"

Doctor: "Since the liver will be genetically identical to your own, your body won't know the difference."


Sounds like Science Fiction, right? So did liver transplants 200 years ago.

[iflitifloat]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 11:38am

Well, Rodney. Who would have thought we'd find common ground...

It's made me feel all 'glass-half-full'!

[Plum]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 11:40am

Just out of curiosity, Rodney, are you pro-life?

[beacon1]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 11:53am

RodneyK...

Very interesting statement about the heart being how the Spirit recognizes the body? Is that a religious tenent? Is it for resurrection purposes? I've never heard that concept before and it is intriguing me.

[Plum]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:07pm

Sounds like Egyptian mummification, actually.

[beacon1]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:17pm

hmmm...

Was mummification used to preserve the body for a subsequent retrieval by the Spirit or to keep it as a host for the Spirit (ie no separation of the two at death?)

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:17pm

You are correct, plum.

The Egyptians cut out all the internal organs but the heart.

I am pro life. Personally I think abortion is wrong. BUT I acknowledge that you can't make abortion illegal and if I were to be an elected official, I would fight any anti-abortion legislation, except for partial birth abortion. But that is for another thread.

*pours a little more water in iflitifloat's glass*

[beacon1]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:20pm

So the heart is preserved to maintain a postmortem link between the physical body and the spirit which has withdrawn from it? Is this for a subsequent re-unification?

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:28pm

Not so much for reunification. Remember the Egyptians had no thought of reincarnation. It's more of an anchor for the soul.

Plus, I can't remember all the specifics, but there is this thing in Egyptian Mythology that says Anubis, the God of Death, would weigh you heart against a feather. If your heart was too heavy, you were a bad person. So I guess they kept the heart in there because you'd need it for that test.

It's something I've just recently gotten interested in.

[orion59]

Posted: 10/6/04 at 12:34pm

Beacon, There are a few differnt theories on that. The most popular being that the ancient Egyptians belived that the dead went into another world where the body would be reunited with the organs. They would need the organs preserved for use in the other world. They would need slaves, money, food and other earthly possessions to make their lives in the other world comfortable. That's why all those things where entombed with them. It's a belief held by others to this day. I believe that is one of the reasons why organ donation is against Judaic law. It stems back to the belief that the body, once resurrected must be whole in order to be reunited with the spirit.