|
MESSAGE BOARD I'll give you my heart (but I might need your liver)
In this story, Chris Berdik discusses LifeSharers, a new organ donor network that gives first priority to fellow members in need. Should exclusive clubs like LifeSharers, or financial incentives, be legal? Or should organ donation be based strictly on altruistic motivations.
Page 1 I believe the networks should be legal, but will not be effective unless there are a huge amount of people in them. It sounds reasonable to me that if you're willing to receive an organ then you should be willing to give one also. I also believe that the priority list should be based on 1) that you are willing to donate an organ and 2) based on your need. If an organ becomes available and it does not match anyone on this list, then it can be given to those who weren't willing to donate their organs. To summarize, organs are a gift of life. They serve no purpose after you're dead. So, why not donate them? People willing to donate them should be given priority over those not willing to donate. Neil, Arlington Neil is 100% correct. By implementing this type of program the number of people registering to become organ donors will increase. What could possibly be wrong with that? Steve, Bedford In a country as great as the United States, exclusive clubs or financial incentives should not be legal. The current system is not perfect, of course, but going that route would be a step down. Let's not dumb down the U.S. Let's keep things on the up and up. Otherwise we'll become a laughingstock. If we want to keep doing great things, such as the Mars robot, then we have to act great. You can't have it both ways. I love the Brits -- they're with us in our greatest crisis -- but let's ignore that evolutionary nonsense and stick with time-tested wisdom. Peter, Cambridge What a boatload of selfish crap. I'm appalled to think the likes of this group and I share a common American heritage. What about people whose organs are not acceptable, you smarmy weasels? Like diabetics...I know of people who live with a life- threatening condition like that who volunteer time at blood banks because they aren't allowed to donate their own blood -- or who need kidney and cornea transplants because of the ravages of their disease -- but couldn't give you their right arm if they wanted to because of the obvious. I'd never wish the people who came up with this nasty idea develop diabetes -- but perhaps the error of their narcissistic ways should be made public. Shame on you... Tamara, Nashua I agree that in order to recieve an organ, you must be willing to be a donor. The current system is failing, too many people are dying waiting for an organ. While Dr. Delmonico believes that a network such as LifeSharer is descriminatory due to lack of universal access, I believe that 1) universal access could be acheived and 2) the financial incentives favored by Dr. Fox and UNOS are even more problematic. What weathly person is going to care about the financial incentive of donating a loved one's organ? A financial incentive will only motivate those that could use the money. Under such a system, poorer people will become the resource of organs. Isn't that discriminatory? If reciept of an organ is premised upon the recipient being a donor, more people would become donors. Sandy, Medford yeah, of course. what sort of facist would not permit people from sharing selectively. you can't control everything John, Cambridge Tamara of Nashua: Here are two relevant answers from the Lifesharers FAQ. Q. Some people can't donate their organs, so doesn't LifeSharers discriminate against them? A. No. Everybody has something that can be used for transplantation, therapy, or medical research. For example, many people who can't donate their organs can donate their corneas or other tissue. Everyone who is willing to donate what they can is welcome to join LifeSharers. Q. Is anyone barred from joining LifeSharers due to any pre-existing medical condition? A. No. Mario, Cambridge I'm not sure I really understand the intricate details of how such a group would work; but from the start here, it seems odd at the very least to propose such conditions on transplant recipients. Isn't the ordeal enough one time around? Doesn't this barter system corrupt the whole notion of donating? I might be blind to bigger problem here - but the whole idea that someone in need would be denied or passed over because they are not part of an 'exlcusive' group seems almost blasphemous. Maybe it's our society or more a sign of the times -- either way it's a sad comment on our humanity when we choose to expoit the vunerabilities of sick people and the "altruistic motivations" of donors. et, Somerville What ever happened to the saying, "it's always better to give than receive". If that statement stands for all it's worth, then giving the gift of life, the most precious gift of all, should be the greatest joy in life instead of being contingent upon someone else’s need to reciprocate the deed. Marc , Del Mar, CA I agree with Tamara 100%. Why should someone who cannot sign up to donate because they are suffering from a condition that doesn't allow them to , get screwed. They have every right to a transplant as much as anyone else. Sue, Lowell
|
Read the story: 
