[hycaria]

Am I the only one not so very enthuastic about organ donation ? Except for cornea, it means a life long of heavy immunosuppressive treatments (which are not free afaik), leading to higher cancer rates and many other side effects. Things are rarely a pure win, there are downsides (even though they are suspiciously rarely mentioned). I don't think we have such a shortage of people that we have to save every and each one no matter the cost.

So yes, I for one am not interested at all by donating my organs (here it is an opt out). I'd rather be dissected, as I learned a lot on (in my case animal) cadavers.

[daliusd]

Well, I believe in Denmark if you opt out you are put in the end of queue in case you will need donor in the end (and you can't be never sure about that). I think that's fair system which could be adopted in other countries.

[candiodari]

First, Spain is only good because doctors get paid quite a bit per time they take the decision to transplant. I'm pretty sure this is coming everywhere, and makes the following comment far worse.

As for the first or last on the waiting list, that's a cool soundbyte, but that doesn't matter at all. It is still the case that most transplanteable organs are thrown away.

Now granted, that's not 100% true in all cases. If you're on dialysis and need a kidney, that might happen. But a true necessary organ, like a lung or a heart, beginning of the list, end of the list, doesn't matter. Even then, compatibility is an enormous restriction.

And of course, there's the counterargument everybody's silent about : if you're an organ donor, doctors will not make the same efforts to keep you alive. The decision to donate organs cannot be made postmortem, but must be done before the patient dies (at least 15 minutes or they won't even attempt transplant, ideally hours). Granted, if you're braindead for 2 months, not an issue.

If however you come in after a car accident with heavy internal bleeding, a doctor has a choice : you're, say, 80% likely to die, but in 30 minutes or so, not immediately. But if they extract your heart now, they can prolong the life of someone else by ~5 years with odds of some 50% or so (can be higher, can be lower).

At that point, a doctor will make the decision to throw away the 20% and ... well kill you.

But it gets worse : they won't use sedation (and though it's likely you're unconscious, it's not certain, certainly the level is uncertain (because there is more states between awake and coma than you'd think, some of those states involve paralysis, or you may be conscious but have severe nerve damage), as that would significantly reduce the odds of a successful transplant.

Now I'd hope they'd at least inject an overdose of morphine once the organ's out (because the patient at that point will, of course, die, no need for suffering).

Sadly, if accurately informed, I believe nobody would volunteer to be an organ donor.

And yes, the Spain thing is true in the worst possible case: doctors get paid, thousands of euros, for every time they declare a patient beyond rescue and go for organ harvesting instead. So not only is there a terrible incentive in the first place (the same as elsewhere, organs available for harvesting save lives of course), there's an even worse incentive in Spain's case.

[pjc50]

Your argument seems to be that surviving an otherwise incurable illness has .. downsides?

[eezurr]

I dont have a source for this, but I've been told a couple times that doctors who get cancer tend to decline chemotherapy/treatment because of what the treatments do to the body. It was described as aging your body to a frail old person (not matter what your initial age was), that is not reversible.

Or think about this on the extreme end: I think many people would choose a time to die peacefully rather than sit in a semi-vegetable state in a hospital bed for the rest of their life.

[the_af]

> "[...] I've been told a couple times that doctors who get cancer tend to decline chemotherapy/treatment [...] [Chemotherapy] was described as aging your body to a frail old person (not matter what your initial age was), that is not reversible"

Maybe in some cases, but as an overall statement it seems seriously misinformed. Not all cancers or their treatments are the same. My mom had breast cancer surgery followed by chemotherapy and it certainly didn't age her or make her body frail.

[shabda]

Plus with organ transplant you hardly "sit in a semi-vegetable state ". I am a transplant recipient, and have a near normal life.

[hycaria]

It's not a definitive cure but a life long treatment. Of course it has downsides.

[shabda]

I am a kidney transplant recipient. I received my transplant 9 years ago.

My immunosuppressive treatments is a walk in the park compared to the 6 months I was on dialysis. I got married and had a kid after my transplant, none of which I even considered while I was on dialysis.

Which is to say, you are horribly misinformed. :). I hope you will read more about organ donation before making the decision to not opt in.

[hycaria]

Where did I say dialysis is better ?

Also idk your personal reasons for need of a transplant but common reasons for acute renal failure are diabetes melleitus, vascular disease, and immunological diseases. Many in each category have a genetic component. I wouldn't dare to pass such risk to offspring but to each his own I guess.

To grossly sum it up, we end up putting new kidneys in people who fucked up their own because they got diabetes (ok, a small share is congenital, which also sucks a lot). I don't feel like sustaining that and I don't feel guilty the slightest.

[shabda]

Are you seriously suggesting anyone who has renal failure shouldn't have children? What next - siblings of renal failure should be sterilized because they might be at Y% higher chance of X unknown disease?

Your choice if you don't want to sign up for organ donation, and I respect your choice. Everyone should make their choices about their bodies. However, your choices are coming from horrible misinformation.

[hycaria]

I don't think it's very wise but there's no obligation. If you want to have children risking to suffer from the same life altering conditions that's your choice. But what happens when everyone in your lineage is dependent on organ donation or more generally lifelong drug dependance? Is that alright or should we act when it's preventable (genetic counseling etc)?

Also what is misinformed? Are you living without treatment? Do you indeed carry any risk for offspring or are you in the slight share of patients who got acute renal failure thanks to some bacterial infection? Since you didn't address it and the odds are not in favor, I don't have much doubt on the answer. I don't think much is factually wrong, rather that you're displeased with my conclusions : not worth enabling.

[emptyfile]

>Am I the only one not so very enthuastic about organ donation ?

No but most other people have religious or similar reasons.

I don't see many people not donating organs because they simply don't care. So congratz I guess.

[Frqy3]

As someone who has lived more than an extra 10 years of life due to receiving a transplant, I am very happy to take my daily immunosuppressant medication.

For context, I was in my 30s when I had the transplant. If I was 70+, then perhaps I might pass.

I hope you are never in the position of being on a waiting list for an organ donation, but it is much easier to dismiss an abstract idea of saving some unspecified life versus facing short term uncertainty about your own continued life.

[shabda]

High five! I received my transplant at age of 24, nine years ago. I hope many, many years of life to you.

I hope anyone reading this thread considers signing up to be an organ donor. There is very few free lunches, but organ transplant is one of them.

Also, this line from the parent post requires a response:

> I don't think we have such a shortage of people that we have to save every and each one no matter the cost.

Organ donations are huge net positives for society. In a world with no organ transplants, the renal failure patients would be spending an average of 5 years longer on dialysis, which ties up hospitals, patients and caregivers mush longer than a transplant operation plus+ immunosuppressive treatments do.

[hutzlibu]

Signed up long ago. Why not, I mean why would I care what happens to my organs, if I am dead? So if someone can benefit, good for them and good for you!

[hutzlibu]

I would be curious if you think the same about "why save everyone?", when it would be your life in need of a organ.

[hycaria]

Such is life, unfair down to the DNA. I don't think anyone merits to be such a burden to society, although it is tempting to see oneself as different.

Also, some people don't even have the choice. Does it affect happiness ?