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
