Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: miko2d on January 20, 2004, 08:52:17 PM
-
http://www.theultimategiftforloni.com/
(http://www.theultimategiftforloni.com/webgraphic/Dad-Loni-Mom-1.jpg)
Loni is a young woman of 19 urgently in need of a kidney transplant. The waiting list for cadaver organs is too long.
Loni's website has resulted in over sixty (60) altruistic
individuals who have prayerfully and lovingly offered to donate the "Ultimate Gift".
The problem is that in Canada only the spouse or another family member could successfully donate organs. The government defends this rationing policy by arguing that donors face health and psychological problems and the uncertainty regarding the motivations of organ donors/sellers would place an ethical burden on the standards of health professionals.
However, in the past ten years, due to the continuing shortage of organs caused by the state's rationing policy, it became possible for close friends to donate organs. But even then, local government boards of health evaluate the friend to determine if he or she meets the definition of a close friend out of a misplaced fear that this situation could generate discrimination or abuses. It's believed that certain people could be motivated to give because they're touched by the age of the patient, his or her place in society or even physical attractiveness or other "unearned" benefits.
Supposedly, the live donor offer has to be anonymous to an anonymous recipient - directed by state official.
God, err.. Marx forbid that a stranger decides whether Loni should live or die based on her cuteness or other factors, rather than some government bureaucrat. People may think theymown their bodies or their lives...
miko
-
Warning! This is a Ripsnort Special of Cut'n'Paste.
_____________________________ _
Loni has a donor! Yes, after what seemed like impossible odds, Loni's Uncle Paul has been positively cross-matched with her! There are still a few tests to do, but the main part is finished. We are all very excited, and so grateful to God for making a way for her uncle to become eligible, for his tender and generous heart, and for his beautiful and supportive family.
_____________________________ _
Miko, are you starting on a new crusade? Rallying the troops to criticize broken Health Care systems in other Countries?
Have at it then. Yes its screwed, as is the one in your country IMO.
At least In this country we have the option of getting in to the hospital and recieving emergency care without worrying about the effects of patch'n'push out the door after we are stabalized.
As the cut'n'paste shows, she is not being condemed to die, she has a donor.
-
I saw a movie once where the organs from a convicted killer were transplanted into different people. The organ recipients eventually became lunatic killers, too. We must not let that happen to Canadians. Stop the madness! Stop the insanity! Think of the children!
-
odd...usually people like that take a quick border jump pay excessive amounts on a american kidney and come back...
-
Ping: Miko, are you starting on a new crusade? Rallying the troops to criticize broken Health Care systems in other Countries?
I was accused of only attacking socialism in US.
Have at it then. Yes its screwed, as is the one in your country IMO.
Most canadians I've talked to who like their healthcare system happened to be healthy people.
At least In this country we have the option of getting in to the hospital and recieving emergency care without worrying about the effects of patch'n'push out the door after we are stabilized.
If you are implying that we face the abovementioned situation in US, that's a load of BS.
We take out an insurance card or a credit card out of our wallet and pay for our healthcare. A miniscule number of people who have neither means nor insurance can rely on other sources.
And we are not condemned to die because getting a cure from a stranger woudl offend some government busybody's egalitarian sensisbilities.
As the cut'n'paste shows, she is not being condemed to die, she has a donor.
She has not the best donor possible with the healthiest and most suitable kidney - and not the donor who can best afford to lose a kidney, but the only donor that the state allowed her to have.
She will likely get an inferior kindney and end up on a waiting list a few years down the line while her unkle may suffer and die prematurely for the loss of kidney he may be ill equipped to afford.
And it solves nothing for the few thousand canadian people who are waiting for transplant and are too poor (after paying exorbitant taxes for a health care system denied to them) to come to US for an operation, like thousands of canadians do every year.
And of course you are getting all the drugs developed by US companies just for the cost of manufacture while we - americans - foot a huge bill for their research and development.
miko
-
how is this communism? sounds more like bad policys.
-
Frogm4n: how is this communism? sounds more like bad policys.
Depends what you mean by "bad".
It's a communist policy - a good communist policy. The idea that people do not own their bodies and that government that is supposedely acting in their interests is entitled to make decisions for them is pure communism. And since free people would not tolarate communism, anything that makes them less free and more miserable and more dependant on the state is a good communist policy.
Being a good communist policy, it is bad policy in view of many of us still clinging to the conservative western values of liberty.
miko
-
sorry im confuseing socialism with communism again. you know the lets help out everyone vs communist stuff.
-
Frogm4n: sorry im confuseing socialism with communism again. you know the lets help out everyone vs communist stuff.
Socialism is a more general category of a social arrangement where government controls property and bodies of its subjects.
Communism is just a kind of socialism where the government exercises direct ownership of means of production while under fascism ther is nominal private ownership but the state exercises control through regulations.
Since in this case the state directly owns the means of madical production (operating rooms) and presumes to own the bodies of the people on its geographical territory, it seems more of a communism to me.
The law preventing strangers donating organs is basically a communist law.
The law preventing sale of organs for money in effect sets/regulates a zero price, so it is more fascist kind of socialism than a communist one.
miko
-
glad to know you have absalutly no ethical standards there miko...just because a law is "communist" doesnt mean its wrong
-
vorticon: glad to know you have absalutly no ethical standards there miko...just because a law is "communist" doesnt mean its wrong
I can see why someone would believe that my ethical standards differ from his, but to make a claim that I have none? Does that mean you only believe that your set of ethical standards is valid and everybody else's is false and thus non-existent?
My ethical standards are very simple. Agression/coercion is wrong and evil. The only acceptable agression/coersion is the one directed to defend/prevent an unprovoked aggression/coercion.
Communism implies violent coercion/agression against people who do not agress against others.
If Loni, the willing donor and a surgeon performed the transplant in Canada, they would have not violated anybody's person or property, would not have agressed against anybody.
Nevertheless, they would have been hidnapped/arrested by government thugs and thrown to jail or hurt or killed if they tried to resist.
The same is true with any socialist law. It is based on unprovoked aggression and illegitimate coercion.
Such law is illegitimate. In your opinion, an illegitimate and invasive/coercive law may be right while in my ethichs it is evil and wrong.
You ethics seems to be based on an arbitrary decision of some government bureaucrat or at best a majority on what is right and what is wrong, while my ethics id set in stone and does not depend on any one's opinion in determining what is right and what is wrong.
I'd say that it is you who do not have an ethical system while I do have one.
miko
-
Miko, is it worse then what goes on in Moldavia now?...
A person gets persuaded that he has a rare blood group, and is offered $1000 to go to Turkey and donate blood to some rich citizen. He gets to the hospital, and during the "health test" he gets his kidney cut away, recieves his $1000 and is kicked back to Moldavia...
I bet he signed all possible papers in Turkish kindly agreeing to "donate" his kidney to the respected and noble Turkish citizen.
You still remember Soviet times, believing that nothing can be worse then what we had here. You simply lack the understanding of what "uncivilised" gangster "capitalism" is.
Remember Marx sayng that for 300% profit a capitalist will sell his own mother? If there will be an opportunity to perform combinations like I mentioned above - there will immediately appear a group of people making money on stealing human organs.
-
Boroda: Miko, is it worse then what goes on in Moldavia now?...
I bet he signed all possible papers in Turkish kindly agreeing to "donate" his kidney to the respected and noble Turkish citizen.
You still remember Soviet times, believing that nothing can be worse then what we had here. You simply lack the understanding of what "uncivilised" gangster "capitalism" is.
What's your point? You seem to be proving my claims while you sound like you oppose them.
The probems you cite are examples of lack of capitalism and too much state intervenion in economy.
If there was a free market for donor organs, there would not be as much illegal activity surrounding it. Like in any other product.
Remember Marx sayng that for 300% profit a capitalist will sell his own mother?
Marx forgot to matnion that the same soundrell who would sell his mother under capitalism would sell other people's mothers under socialism even more eagerly.
miko
-
100 percent capitalism bad, 100 percent socialism bad. 50/50 well i guess we can kinda live with it.
-
100% capitalism is good. It means no coersion whatsoever - only free choice of people commiting voluntary transactions. Except for ordinary crime, of course - which is present in any society.
Any ratio of capitalism/socialism is not stable. Socialism must necessarily expand or be actively reduced.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
100% capitalism is good. It means no coersion whatsoever - only free choice of people commiting voluntary transactions. Except for ordinary crime, of course - which is present in any society.
Any ratio of capitalism/socialism is not stable. Socialism must necessarily expand or be actively reduced.
miko
100% captilism is bad...if america was a pure capitalist state every company would have been bought out by the rockerfellers or under mafia rule...even a kids lemonade stand would be paying for either "protection" or get payed 5 bucks to stop competing...pure capitalism is completly unstable...you need some government control otherwise it will all go belly up...
"I can see why someone would believe that my ethical standards differ from his, but to make a claim that I have none? Does that mean you only believe that your set of ethical standards is valid and everybody else's is false and thus non-existent?"
nope...just seemed that way from how you dont care about peoples motives...as long as it furthers capitalism
-
Originally posted by miko2d
What's your point? You seem to be proving my claims while you sound like you oppose them.
The probems you cite are examples of lack of capitalism and too much state intervenion in economy.
If there was a free market for donor organs, there would not be as much illegal activity surrounding it. Like in any other product.
FREE MARKET FOR DONOR ORGANS!?!?!
Miko, you probably misunderstood what I wrote. The poor Moldavian guy lost his kidney because some Turkish "businessman" lied to him and made him sign papers that he didn't understand. It looked like a "fair donation". It isn't about free market. You see, Turkish laws allow such donations, and that's why some rich Western ar$e coes there, pays $$$$$ and gets a kidney stolen from a poor young unemployed Moldavian.
I find Canadian laws quite reasonable. They are definetly made to prevent such crimes. OK, let the girl go to Turkey and PAY for the kidney stolen from someone, this will be your beloved capitalism.
What? She doesn't have enough money to pay for a criminal operation? She wants her security to cover surgery? Damn commies always want something for free! Then sit down, relax and wait for your luck.
This is the bloody difference between two systems. Every system has advantages and drawbacks, but IMHO you can easily see the moral side of the story.
I am not a big fan of "socialism" even in it's Sweedish version, but I honestly believe that medical treatment must be free for all and unconditionaly equal for janitor and a president.
I see a difference between former Soviet medicine and what we have here now. I am lucky that my Father gets what he could get in Soviet times- he is a Veteran and a retired officer, and I see "public" medical treatment that is interested in killing you ASAP so you'll not bother them anymore and "commercial" clinics that never cure you so they can leech your money forever.
-
vorticon: 100% captilism is bad...if america was a pure capitalist state every company would have been bought out by the rockerfellers or under mafia rule...even a kids lemonade stand would be paying for either "protection" or get payed 5 bucks to stop competing...
Every company woudl not have been bough by anyone. The wealth accumulated under pure capitalism is received in return for providing equal or greater value to the consumers, by offering a better choice than competition.
If the rockerfellers can provide better goods than anyone else, they will not need to buy anyone out - the compatition would go bancrupt anyway. If they do not provide better goods, then they will be at risk of going bancrupt and be bought out by competition.
Crime and mafia is even more prevalent in socialist societies that in capitalist ones - and there is much less that can be done to avoid their influence in a socialist society.
pure capitalism is completly unstable...you need some government control otherwise it will all go belly up...
Government control inevitably ends up in the hands of scoundrels that ponder to the lowest instincts of the mob. How could it be better or more stable than every person making decisions for himself and bearing full responcibility for it?
Societies grow and prosper under capitalism and go belly up under socialism. That "otherwise it will all go belly up" you scare us with has never happened in history.
All the examples of societies going bust are results of state intervention - even if it's presented by ignorant or dishonest people as the failure of capitalism itself.
nope...just seemed that way from how you dont care about peoples motives...as long as it furthers capitalism
You sound self-contradictory. If a "capitalism" is a separate cause that can be "furthered", then I am not selfish. If I am selfish, then I would not be furthering any cause.
Capitalism is not a political movement or a philosophy. It's the state of the maximum personal freedom. Capitalists do not cooperate - they compete. Nobody would like to curtail capitalism and avoid competition trough the use of government regolations than established capitalists.
It's not wealthy that benefit from capitalism most - in fact the wealthy capitalists are at risk to lose their fortunes if they make a bad decision in satisfying our wants.
It's poor people who benefit by having an opportunity to advance and by being provided with ever-increasing supply of products.
Rich people were fine in all millenia before capitalism originated. Socialist societies are full of rich people, only wealth there takes different forms and social mobility is greatly diminished.
Some people prefer to be free and some prefer to be slaves - and foolishly expect safety and sustenance in return for slavery.
It has nothing to do with personal desire for wealth or power. Being resourcefull an intelligent, I and my children can and will reach wealth, power and influence in any kind of society. I will be on top if we have a communist state, a free market capitalism or an islamic theocracy.
I just prefer to do it in a free non-coercive way by offering people better choices than a compatition can - rather than rely on fooling the majority and then relying on government coercion to heve them do my bidding.
You seem to have some trust in the elected scoundrels and non-elected judges and bureaucrats that they will make your life better at the expanse of someone productive. Sure, it can last for a while. But not forever. Overexploited people stop producing.
Canadian system is much less stable one than even the US system - with much greater debt to income ratio. You are living beyong your means and borrowing unsustainably and you are the one talking about stability...
Just because you do not go bankrupt this year, does not mean your system is stable in principle.
miko
-
"Every company woudl not have been bough by anyone. The wealth accumulated under pure capitalism is received in return for providing equal or greater value to the consumers, by offering a better choice than competition.
If the rockerfellers can provide better goods than anyone else, they will not need to buy anyone out - the compatition would go bancrupt anyway. If they do not provide better goods, then they will be at risk of going bancrupt and be bought out by competition. "
the reason why there buying them out is to maximize there own profits and gain control over there warehouses/producer/retail outlets...its to gain complete control over the entire supply chain...if there goods are worse than the competitions but they have enough money to buy them out...they will...
the fact that you dont seem to know who the rockerfellers were indicates that you havent payed much attention to american history...i suggest you learn some before coming on here...while your at it see if you can learn up some canadian history...or at least some canadian policy (you can find plenty at http://www.gc.ca)
-
Yes she takes her chances like the rest of us. Getting an organ is not a popularity test nor a luxury going to the highest bidder.
Our system seems perfect to me.
-
I wouldn't say perfect, but there should be some standards in the trafficking of Human Organs.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Does that mean you only believe that your set of ethical standards is valid and everybody else's is false and thus non-existent?
You can apply that to alot of what you write Miko. That my friend, is a two way street. I agree with you on the fact she should get her organ, if someone wants to donate one to save her life, she should get it. But under your 100% capitalism, people would get organs based on their wealth, not their need. The wealthy could buy up all the organs and sell them to the highest bidder. And if you think it should be that way, well, then there is no need to further discuss it.
-
dude miko... have you ever studied what happened in the late 19th century in american buisness. The same reasons socialism goes bad are the same reason capitilism goes bad. sure 50/50 is unstable, but at least we dont have sweat shops, owned by a compan, and we are free to choose what we want to do with our lives.
-
Sixpence: You can apply that to alot of what you write Miko. That my friend, is a two way street. I agree with you on the fact she should get her organ, if someone wants to donate one to save her life, she should get it. But under your 100% capitalism, people would get organs based on their wealth, not their need.
One significant correction. Not capitalism but freedom. Free market capitalism is just a natural result of a society based on freedom and security in body and property.
As for wealth, what's wrong with wealth anyway? In a free society wealth is accumulated by providing an equal or greater amount of value to other people. Once you benefit a lot of people greatly, you end up with a lot of wealth. Why should not one be able to spend that wealth as he sees fit?
Otherwise you would be correct in theory. A free society does not guaranee anyone equality of an outcome or even equality of opportunities. Only freedom to advance to the full expent of one's abilities by serving others in a coercion-free markertplace.
The wealthy could buy up all the organs and sell them to the highest bidder.
That is noncence. The supply increases with price, so as the need for organs increases the supply increases too.
Why would the wealthy buy up the organs and sell them to the highest bidder? Why would not the donors sell them to the highest bidders directly, through e-bay or whichever way they prefer?
Why would a poor but smart entrepreneur with not a cent of his own money borrow from the bank and establish a business brockering the organs - receiving tiny spread (kept low by competition) to benefit both donors and recepients?
The rich person could buy an organ for a poor recepient.
Whichever form it takes, we know that there would be more organs donated if the price reflects the market and more people saved - rich or poor. Poor people will still have insurance, or charity to buy the organs - just like they are not left without healthcare now.
With the current system the government bureaucrat decides who gets the organs, the supply is much lower than it could be - as any product would be if its price was kept at zero or even negative (in Canada a donor would apparently get not a reward for his organ but a legal punishment).
People die unncesarity - mostly poor who could have been helped through donations. Rich and politically-connected find the ways to get their organs.
So your ethics apparently says "Let many people - especially poor - die unnecesarily as long as there is no apparent benefit to the wealthy people that I envy".
You would rather see many innocent people hurt than see one wealthy person benefit. Though you do not mind if an exeedingly wealthy person, especially one willing to commit an illgal or immoral act (use black market where organs are not always voluntarily donated or avoid the laws of your country by having a procedure elsewhere) would benefit as long as you can pretend not to notice it.
You propose using violence an coercion to prevent people from making a mutually-beneficial transaction with no benefit whatsoever to anyone other than sparing your twisted sensibilities. Basically, you are willing to kill people by denying them life for your religious beliefs.
You would kill thousands of people every year in a slight hope that you would also kill a few wealthy men (or their children) in the process.
That is atrocious.
I would still be willing to discuss things with you despite your ghoulish inclinations, not being a narrow-minded exclusionary zealot, but if you don't want to - feel free to put me on ignore.
miko
-
So you think the wealthy get the organs and not the based on need, that's all you had to say. Enough said.
-
Hooooboy.
Of course this is all tied to BSE somehow, but I just haven't figured out how yet.
The cows are revolting too.
"Let freedom MOOO....let freedom MOOO...let freedom MOOO!"
http://www.shagrat.net/Html/cows.htm
RTR
There's a damn conspiracy hiding behind every tree I tell ya!
-
Sixpence: So you think the wealthy get the organs and not the based on need, that's all you had to say. Enough said.
So you think weathy should not be able to buy organs for those in need and you would rather see no donations occur and poor needy people die than have a transplant financed by charity.
And even if someone got wealthy by providing customers with a necessary (life-saving?) product, I do not mind if he gets to buy a kidney from a donor who would not have otherwise donated it.
So far all your statements are negative. You prefer people to die just to make you feel better. You do not propose any alternative for securing organs for the needy.
My suggestion would not deny an organ to anyone who would currently get it. Everybody would be just as free to mark "donate" on his driver license so that doctors could dispose of his cadaver as they see fit.
The policies you endorce deny organs to tens of thousands every year by limiting the supply.
For a guy claiming "there is no need to further discuss it" or "enough said" you sure are a verbose poster. You may wish reconsider talking to me or posting those sillies.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
So you think weathy should not be able to buy organs for those in need and you would rather see no donations occur and poor needy people die than have a transplant financed by charity.
miko
No Miko, this is what I am saying. You have 2 people who need the same organ, one has 6 months to live, the other has 6 days to live. The person with 6 months to live comes from wealth, and can offer more money for the organ. The person with 6 days to live has been waiting for the organ longer, but is very poor.
My belief is that you say the wealth gets the organ, I do not see it that way.
-
Sixpence: No Miko, this is what I am saying. You have 2 people who need the same organ, one has 6 months to live, the other has 6 days to live. The person with 6 months to live comes from wealth, and can offer more money for the organ. The person with 6 days to live has been waiting for the organ longer, but is very poor.
My belief is that you say the wealth gets the organ, I do not see it that way.
I never said that. When one of us dies in an accuident, his body is delivered to the nearest hospital and if the donor checkbox is set, the organs are used for the neadiest person nearby - since the organs cannot be stored and transported for long.
That is not going anywhere. Never said that anyone would have the power to outlaw it. Nothing will change here absolutely.
Righ now the only supply of organs is from cadavers who checked the donation box and rare voluntary donors helping the people they know. Neither of those is likely to change his/her mind about donation just beause there is a market for them.
I am not less likely to donate a car or a house to charity after my death or while alive just because there is a market for houses and cars and I can sell it for cash.
Now with my system in addition to the organ transplants happening above, being able to offer money to a live donor - who may even have three kidneys, which occasonally occurs - or a relatives of a dead peroson who has not checked his donor card, or to a dying man who has not done so - you will have a completely new supply of organs that woudl benefit people without affecting the regular recepients.
The prices do not even have to be high - especially when it comes to money offered to the relatives of the deceased. And as the supply increases, the prices will drop and the black market and atrociois crime of organ procuring would stop.
A young healthy person may take a chance of living with one kidney for a $100,000 or even more while another person will have his life saved for that amount.
A person dying from some desease may decide to sell a healthy organ - while alive or after death - to leave money to his family.
Ownership of one's own body is a pretty basic natural righy. Forbidding peeple to dispose of it is a very great intrusion on the government's part.
So in your example a person with 6 days to live will get an organ but a wealthy person with 6 months to live may be able to find a willing donor somewhere and have his life saved too with a completely different organ that would not become available otherwise.
That will release a place in line for another poor person who has 7 months to live.
miko
-
Miko...is there ANYTHING about North America you like? Nothing personal, but if it's so bad, why not move?:confused:
-
So if a donor comes forward, but realizes the person with 6 months has some cash, the person with 6 days is outta luck. OK, I can understand that, although I think it stinks like yesterdays diapers. But as far as cadavers go, I think the need goes first, not the money.
-
rpm371: Miko...is there ANYTHING about North America you like? Nothing personal, but if it's so bad, why not move?:confused:
I am opposed to a socialist invasive state in general, not North America in particular.
There is not currently a place on earth that has a free state not afflicted with a great degree of socialism.
My criticism of US government arrangement in particular is not to achieve some kind of gratification and make you feel bad - it is my small contribution towards preserving the vestiges of the free market to which we owe our prosperity and hopefully rolling the socialism back - to the state as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers at least.
I dislike Soviet Union very much - that's why I would hate USA turning into one.
If you see a sorry picture of a person slowly drowning and get upset and try to persuade people around you to help you save him, would you consider an advice "do not look at that bad thing, go look at some supermodel instead" a good advice?
If you want to ignore my point and insted present me as some rabid nay-sayer and ill-wisher to the country I live in - it's your prerogative. In which case I may ask, why the heck do you keep reading my posts?
miko
-
Sixpence: So if a donor comes forward, but realizes the person with 6 months has some cash,
If you name me one case in history of this earth when a healthy person has just walked from the street into a hospital and offered to donate a kidney to anyone a doctor thinks should get a kidney, I will hit myself on the head with a rubber chicken.
If you demonstrate that such a self-sacrificing person would have suddenly changed his mind and refused a donation to the needy person in favor of a wealthy person, I will hit myself with a real chicken. :)
the person with 6 days is outta luck. OK, I can understand that, although I think it stinks like yesterdays diapers. But as far as cadavers go, I think the need goes first, not the money.
If the deceased marked it appropriately, it will be so just like it is now.
If he did not - there will at least be a chance to persuade the family to donate his/her organs for a relatively small sum of money.
Selling an organ form a young healthy man may require a lot of money but selling an organ that will be buried tomorrow? A few hundred or thousand dollars would be sufficient.
miko
-
How many times have you watched the news where a person has a few days to live and put the word out for a donor. And people do show up, most do not match, but sometimes a donor is comes forward. But they usually do not ask for cash. Good thing you said rubber chicken.
Now, I have not been able to find one case to point out, but given the info, you would assume some of the living donors were last minute.
213 people were transformed by a kidney transplant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3052423.stm
Righ now the only supply of organs is from cadavers who checked the donation box and rare voluntary donors helping the people they know.
Living donors now outnumber the traditional source of organs - cadavers - with 6,613 living donors last year, more than triple the number in 1990, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2003/08/10/loc_livingdonors10.html
If the deceased marked it appropriately, it will be so just like it is now. If he did not - there will at least be a chance to persuade the family to donate his/her organs for a relatively small sum of money.
Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly, if my sister dies, I could sell her organs to the highest bidder?
-
Originally posted by miko2d
I dislike Soviet Union very much - that's why I would hate USA turning into one.
Miko, you have to admit that USSR had many great achievements and nice things like free health care and free education, and don't tell me that it was low quality.
Where else in the world you could have a free neuro-surgical operation to sew back cut-off fingers for a village boy?...
Please, tell me what do you think about my sentence: if the girl wants to have a kidney transplantation for free (covered by health insurance, whatever) - she has to wait, and if she is eager to pay for it - she can go abroad and find "commercial" (read - criminal) way to get a kidney. Her life depends on it - so she has the best motivation to find nessesary people.
Canadian laws ensure that there will be no "stealing" of organs or forced donors. I think that availible organs are distributed under strict control, and/or by lottery.
-
Sixpence: How many times have you watched the news where a person has a few days to live and put the word out for a donor. And people do show up
And of course a transplant to a person who is dying is much less effective. It would be much better to transplant an organ to a person who has 2 years to live rather than 2 weeks but hardly many voluntary donors would show up - while a few paid ones just might.
And what to do if a person is not a cute young girl but a balding middle-age man who does not attract so many offers?
Offering money will not make fewer free donors show up. In fact, many more people may wish - or be able to - donate money to buy an organ that to donate it themselves.
Having children to think of, I will not donate an organ under any conditions now unless it's my wife or child. But I just might donate a few hundred dollars to pay for someone's transplant.
Now, I have not been able to find one case to point out, but given the info, you would assume some of the living donors were last minute.
And in Canada they would be turned away. Anyway, last minute or not, an ability to sell their organs would not diminish the supply of such voluntary free donors.
Living donors now outnumber the traditional source of organs - cadavers - with 6,613 living donors last year, more than triple the number in 1990, according to the United Network for Organ Sharing.
Cadavers are the only assured source of organs that is provided by the state or healthcare system. Living donors are found through private efforts, which puts people without access to some resources - cuteness, public voice - at a disadvantage.
Ok, let me see if I understand this correctly, if my sister dies, I could sell her organs to the highest bidder?
That's how it is now. If she does not leave explicit instructions and you have a power of atterney or some such legal stuff, if, God forbid, your sister dies, you may be (if there is a need) approached by a hospital representative and asked if you'd like to donate her organs to some desperate people.
You can concent or refuse.
With my system if you refused, a family of the dying person in need of the transplant would approach you and try to change your opinion by offering you some money. The worst that can happen is that an extra person will be saved - or at least relinquish the next free transplant to another one in line - and you end up with some cash that you can donate in your sister's name or whatever.
It does not seem so terrible to me.
Boroda: Miko, you have to admit that USSR had many great achievements and nice things like free health care and free education, and don't tell me that it was low quality.
The education in general was superior to american one because it was as much socialist but not afflicted by the fads, power struggles or affirmative actions. It had great teachers because pay in other areas was the same and work not so bad, so the capable people were not distracted to industry or science or business. It was not good for the society in general since it is not the optimal use of resources but education was mostly good as a result.
The healthcare was absolutely low quality compared to the american one. It was free - true. So what?
US heathcare in 1930 was great and high quality too but having 1930 level of quality healthcare in the USA of 1990 would have been considered atrocious.
That's what it was in USSR - people had free quality 1930 healthcare in 1990. In the cities at least. In the country it was 1910.
Even in Canada the socialist system is illustrated by shortages. I've just read in a newspaper about some place when one have to wait several weeks for a free CAT-scan while for $300 one can has a CAT-scan for his cat on a moment's notice.
miko