|
||
| Fri, 04 Nov 2005 |
|
||
|
Yet again, it's been an obnoxiously long time since I've posted a durn thing. I've actually had some really cool things going on though, and I look forward to writing about them soon. Until then, a few other things (some of which are provacative :-)
|
||
| /Blog/General | Permanent Link | Comments (4) | ||
|
|
||
| Comments | ||
| Posted at Fri Nov 4 18:49:51 2005 by Don Spidell | ||
| The one part of the current organ donation system I don't like is that a life-long drunk who's zapped his liver could be higher up on the list than someone who's liver just wore out too soon. A website like matchingdonors.com seems to fix that, though I guess you could always lie about being a raging alcoholic. | ||
| Posted at Fri Nov 4 19:11:29 2005 by Eric Andreychek | ||
| Very true, they could lie. Though, you can meet the people first, which could at least offer some kind of impression of themselves in addition to what they wrote. | ||
| Not true Posted at Sat Nov 5 16:16:37 2005 by Nathan Powell | ||
| That is a falsehood that a life long drunk can get a liver before someone else. In fact my uncle, a life long "drunk" as don put it, was denied a place on the list _at all_ because of his problems with alcohol.
One can not lie about how they got cirrhosis, as the abuse of alcohol has other lasting effects that can not be masked at that level.
Now do I think he should have been allowed on the list. No I don't. Not because I didn't love him, I did, but because his disease was so bad that a new liver would not have stood a chance. And a new liver is not the same as starting over. You will likely be in a diminished state health wise, have to take anti-rejection medicine for life and probably not live to a full life expectancy anyway. So in the end I am glad he was not given a liver (and truth be told he didn't try after he was rejected, as he knew he would not be able to stop drinking).
So before you tear off on some righteous quest to blast "life long drunks" consider that perhaps, just maybe, they felt powerless in the face of alcohol and that that type of judgement is...shall we say, uncharitable.
As for the brokeness of the existing system...I am not sure. What criteria do we use. Meaning...so your mother is at the top of the list, and my mother is at the bottom...who is more deserving. It indeed does seem to be an arbitrary decsion, however I am not sure of another way to go about it. The list, at least it appears to me, is a way to determine severity and how long the person has been in need. I am a little concerned about the criteria you listed there eric. I am sure you didn't mean that "age, sex, what you do in life, how much you make" should be the way we determine someones place on the list? We are friends (meaning I have some idea of the things you believe in) so it seems likely that you were just listing a few characteristics of persons. At least I hope you were :) (though perhaps age would be a good quantifier, I mean a 95 y/o v 5 y/o...who would argue with that, cept maybe the 95 y/o :) | ||
| Posted at Mon Nov 7 14:12:02 2005 by Don Spidell | ||
| Ok, strike my last comment from the record. I should have researched better how the organ donation list works. And I didn't sound too compassionate. | ||
|
Post a Comment
trackback TrackBack ping me at: http://www.openthought.org/blosxom.cgi/Blog/General/nov_2005_notes.trackback |
||
|
Also, be sure to check out the OpenThought Web Application Environment |
|
Copyright 2003 Eric Andreychek |