You mean that being mad as hell and being altruistic don't go hand-in-hand? I'm shocked.

I wonder if there's a link between the rise of sarcasm and the decline of altruism as well... lol

It is, and should be, shocking. When our society ceases to care about anyone but ourselves or those we know, that is the end of our nation and our society as we know it. Caring about "strangers" is the foundation of social and political organization and what has given rise to the nation state. The rampant individualism and "ME" culture bodes no good for anyone. We need to begin stressing altruism and lack of "ME" in our schools, in our religion, in our politics, and in our personal lives.

Think about the logical consequences of further ME-ness: (1) you are in an accident on the highway; if no one stops or calls for help from authorities because they do not know you personally ... what is going to happen to you? (2) If there is a national catastrophe (weather, terrorism, natural, etc.) and only those you know personally are on your list to be looked after, what about the old lady or old man next door whose family is all gone? What if you are one of those with no close kin or friends, new in an area?

No, this cessation of altruism that I have witnessed in my lifetime I tie directly to the horrible times we have in all ways. I grew up in a small town where we did care about others and we helped when help was needed. Our nation state reflected those values. (If you choose to have no children, do you feel no obligation to support public education for others' children? Today, you don't seem to feel that obligation.)

I hadn't thought about it exactly this way before. But if you are familiar with Ayn Rand - Objectivism and the REJECTION of ethical altruism - and the connection between her "philosophy" (in quotes) and the Tea Party - I think a fair connection might be made. She promoted the rejection of the interests of the collective and a version of capitolism that mirrors many of the Tea Party's stances.

Interesting...I'm going to do some research to see what others might have written regarding this possible link between Ms. Rand and this wacky group.

Well, the far right in this country has done a lot to rationalize selfishness and greed as being somehow, "good," while at the same time, they argue that liberals, humanists, scientists, environmentalists, public school teachers, health care professionals and the compassionate that promote the concept of helping others, or doing things, "for the common good," is somehow, "bad." How the far right can rationalize this Orwellian logic while calling themselves, "Christians," is beyond the pale.

Who wants to be alturistic when people doubt the integrity of the hospitals and the doctors. People have become cynical and selfish, because that is the example that we get from people in high places. How about all the people without insurance..Why should they care, if nobody cares for them?

The good example is the tea party. Sarah Palin goes aroud writing books and getting big bucks for working at FOX, bringing down the efforts of Democrats for a fee. Then she goes around preaching that she and her policies are the best for the nation, and other BS...and all the other people of the tea party. Who believes the lies of Perry and his gross aproach to issues? People are just mad and have become very skeptical of others.

It is, and should be, shocking.

I was being sarcastic. It's not surprising at all.

The worshipers of the degenerate fascist Ayn Rand abound in the current republican party and find voice in the Teabaggers. Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin requires his staff to read the garbage this women has written. Her garbage "philosophy" with the euphemistic title Objectivism is little more than a fascist reaction to the collectivism of early 20th century Europe. Her cult of the individual a justification for the destruction of the social safety net and her ideas of laissez faire predatory capitalism. The most disgusting element of this pathetic woman's life is of course her disgraceful hypocrisy in using her married name (she used three names throughout her life) to collect American Social Security, a government program that she had railed against.

This is the guiding political "philosophy" of the current radical right wing of the republican party. This is the true threat to our American values at this time.

The article makes no mention of politics/philosophy of the people in these countries.

The organ donation shortage study was based on donations in Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, Germany, the U.K. and the U.S.

Sorry - it's confusing. I can state with full confidence that the US ranks 2nd in the world in donors-per-million. (Spain is only a tiny bit more) In certain regions of the US (Philadelphia...where I live) we do a VASTLY better job than any place in the world with re: donation rates.

This article? Poses a question...WILL a decline in altruism affect donation rates...it doesn't state that it's HAPPENED. I think the answer is MAYBE. But it hasn't happened so far. The Tea Party mentality is certainly a threat to a LOT of community-based endeavors.

IRespond,

I have no health insurance, no job and am losing my house. And I have a chronic health condition that needs medical attention that I will not get anytime soon, but I have been signed up for years as an organ donor. If I have anything they need and can use when I die it is theirs. Just because the rest of the world loses its moral compass doesn't mean I have to.

Interesting position. I've decided not to donate because there are simply so many, many @ssholes and douchebags and I won't get any say in who gets (or doesn't get) what.

I am not an organ donor because I've heard stories of how doctors don't really work all that hard to save the lives of organ donors.

I am not an organ donor (other than blood) because organ donation is not a cure. It turns an acute medical condition (failing organ) into a chronic medical condition (organ rejection treatments). Plus due to the suppression of the immune system, organ recipients are at increased risk of infection and cancer. Each individual organ recipient benefits, but at a huge medical cost. Kidney transplants are the most justifiable because with live donors there is better tissue matching and the organs (kidneys) are in better shape and last longer. However, ethically I strongly disagree with any doctor operating on a healthy individual to remove an organ. Heart, lung, and liver transplants are a waste of precious medical dollars.

I have a friend who donate 40% of his liver to another friend who was a habitual drug user which is why the man's liver was failing.

After the dying man received the liver he quickly returned to his drug usage. Now my friend is in ill health and has jaundice due to complications from his liver donation.

Think before you donate an organ while alive. You could be shortening your own lifespan considerably.

Bisco: And because there is one person who abused his second chance at life, you'd prefer no one get one? Wild eyed absurd stories about evil doctors working to kill you so they can 'harvest' your organs?

I guess these kinds of comments are exactly the link the article makes...what a world.

I'm an organ donor because if I'm going to die anyways, whether or not the health community takes care of me, I might as well give somebody else a chance to live a few years longer. I'm an organ donor because even "@$$holes" share the intrinsic value of human life. I'm an organ donor because if it's a choice between a serious, acute medical condition that threatens one's life, or a chronic medical condition that could potentially threaten one's life later, I would choose the latter and I understand why most people would. I'm an organ donor because once I die, I at least want to turn something sad for my family into something happy for several other families, who would then not be faced with the same loss.

Then demand that our nation provide health care for all its citizens, not just its wealthy. We are the only western industrial power that does not insure that all citizens have adequate health care. And all our health statistics reflect this. Our infant mortality rate is a shame to us all.

I work in organ donation and I'd be happy to share with you that not only will you NOT be allowed to "die" (heart stopping) if you have donation on your license - you WON'T be allowed to die. What do I mean? Ninety-nine point nine percent of the time - you must be stabilized when you are injured to be an organ donor. EXCESSIVE amounts of resources are used to do this - when if you DOn'T have it noted that you're an organ donor - you will be allowed to pass naturally once it's seen as a fatal situation. We pour blood products and resources into trauma patients (only 40% of organ donors die due to trauma) to stabilize them in EXCESS of what would be done if donation was not on the table. It's the OPPOSITE of the popular view that folks are allowed to die so the organs are available. You're not alone, though....this is a common misunderstanding! Spread the word...

I have the organ donor box marked on my license, and my family members know this. If I can't use them any more, please use them to give someone else a chance at life! It's the ultimate in recycling...

am-2025658 wrote, "...you must be stabilized when you are injured to be an organ donor. EXCESSIVE amounts of resources are used to do this..." That is exactly my point. Organ donation results in EXCESSIVE amounts of resources to be used for one person. This is detrimental to the overall medical system. Every person on an organ recipient waiting list must have the means (wealth, insurance, or other provision) to pay for the huge costs. Most organ donation is just bad medicine.

How can someone say that organ donation is a waste of resources and money? I am sure if you had a child diagnosed with a incurable heart defect or something like that and the only thing to save their life was a transplant, then youwould jump at the chance to offer this life saving opportunity! Our country is where it is because people are more worried about what something will cost "them" instead of being selfless and doing something for the greater good no matter what the cost. The values that built are country are gone and the comments here show me that. Stop and think and quit being so selfish and focused on yourself and your wallet. Money can't make you entirely happy. At the end of the day those who love you do. One day you may be on the receiving end of one of those transplants. something to think about. And YES I am an organ donar. I work in the health fields and I have seen many things. Organ donation is worth every penny!

Actually, Dale - a kidney transplant pays for itself vs the costs of dialysis in just two years. Not to mention recipients of kidney transplants are able to get off being tied to a machine 3-5 days a week, and get back to work. People who are working are taken off disability and pay income taxes and have more disposable income to invest in our economy. Transplantation is an extremely favorable option to both the patient and to society.

What does the health care system have to do with organ donation? You're talking about saving another person's life here, and you're being petty.

Flawed logic: organ donation is bad medicine. It would then follow to argue that treating ALL individuals with chronic or acute illness is bad medicine. It's rare (compared to population) to need a transplant. Same as those that need brain surgery for an aneurysm. But I don't think you'd argue that that's a poor use of resources. The outcomes or long-term survival rates for that are poorer than for transplant.

You must decide WHAT the rules are before you determine what is a good or bad use of resources. Is it outcomes...survival rates? Years added to life? Who pays for the resources? Public good?(number of patients treated? commonality of illness treated?) There's not a good or easy way to decide how to measure the "utility" of any medical procedure as it plays out on the national level.

It is considered/claimed to be a public health crises - the number of people listed for transplant. The VAST majority of those folks need kidneys. Obesity, untreated Hypertension, diabetes...all tied in as reasons/causes for renal failure.

The folks on here speak as if ANY low-frequency high-impact event like organ donation or transplantation is EASY to classify as "good" or "bad." Worthwhile or not.

I think it IS worthwhile to ask families about donation when their loved one dies in that RARE way that makes organ recovery possible. It might bring meaning to loss. I think it IS worthwhile to give patients the option of getting transplanted when facing end-stange organ failure. It brings a 2nd chance at life for those that would die otherwise.

Dale- if the donor's organs are all healthy, quite a few lives can be saved by just one donor. It's an excessive amount of work that's done to keep that heart beating until the organs can be taken, but once you break it down to all the people it will help, it's definitely worth it.

A person requiring kidney dialysis is reported to have about $70,000 in medical costs per year of which about $20,000 is for dialysis. A kidney transplant costs 1/4 million dollars and has substantial annual medical costs, including about $25,000 in anti-rejection drugs. Plus, 2/3rds of transplanted kidneys do not last 10 years. 7% don't even last 1 year. As I wrote in my original post, "Kidney transplants are the most justifiable...." I would rather that instead spending a lot of money on a few people, especially the likes of: Andrew Busskohl or Kenneth Pike, it was spread out to help more poor children.

The Israeli method of giving people who sign up to be organ donors a better chance to receive an organ seems reasonable. The present method in the US just seems to be gamed by those with money and power. Further, which is more important, one person with incurable liver disease or 100 poor children in need of basic medical and dental care?

I agree mike... and that's precisely why I'm not an organ donor.

Mike, first you're assuming the hospital benefits from your death by 'selling' your organs. That would be illegal. These are national data banks. Secondly, you're assuming that hospitals and doctors don't investigate or care or actually care about anyone who dies while at their hospital, or about helping anyone stay alive. Seriously? DOA's are investigated. where the heck have you been? You planning on taking everything with you after you die? Your choice, but at least come up with some sensible reasons.

AP

The hospital may say they are not selling the organs, but if they charge 50k for a surgery then they are still making money off of them. It's sort of the same as when you see an offer on tv for something that is marked as free. It's free, you just have to pay 10.99 in shipping and handling. The organs are free, you just have to pay a year's wage to get them transplanted.

Well Jace, if you're naive enough to believe that hogwash, then you must also be one of those kind of folks who have to be told- yes, we really did land on the moon.

Mike, the hospital doesn't have access to the registry that records one's consent to be an organ, eye or tissue donor. The ER has one job and one job only - to save your life. Organ procurement organizations are the only people who have access to the registry database, and they are notified only when a brain death takes place. That is the law with every hospital-based brain death.

you're assuming the hospital benefits from your death by 'selling' your organs. That would be illegal.

AP, they don't sell your organs, instead they sell the installation service to remove and install your organs in another human being, and that they do profit from.

Melanie, it's on most people driver's liscenses, the same one you give them to check your identification with.

"All costs directly relating to the recovery of the organs, including laboratory tests, use of the operating room, surgeon's fees, transportation, etc., are billed to the New York Organ Donor Network. The recipient's transplant hospital then reimburses the Donor Network for the recovery costs. In turn, the transplant hospital is reimbursed by the recipient's insurance company or through Medicare."

http://nyp.org/services/transplantation-surgery/organ-transplant-process.html

All procedures are paid for by someone, taxpayers, people with insurance via premiums, cash donations to various networks, etc. Once in a while a team of doctors will donate their time for the transplant itself.

Richard-2538136

Well Jace, if you're naive enough to believe that hogwash, then you must also be one of those kind of folks who have to be told- yes, we really did land on the moon.

What, because I believe the hospital makes money off of transplant surgeries. I have never had one personally but have an idea through family of how much they cost. If you have to have a transplant someday you probably won't be so defensive of the system. The hospitals make thousands of dollars for every transplant, and don't even have to pay for what they are selling.

Wasn't there a kid in California recently who tried to sell his kidney on the black market to pay for school loans?

I remember that story bumpitybump, but can't remember where in the world the kid was... I thought he was in Australia but I'm probably wrong.

That wasn't the in the US...it was a story about a black market operation in India and the kid sold his kidney to buy an X-Box, then had serious complications (the parents didn't find out about it until the complications).

Mike: there is a waiting list for the relatively few organ donations there are in the country, and it isn't 'first come first served'. Making it legal to sell organs, which is not going to happen, is a receipe for disaster.

mike ... how many 85-year-olds (who aren't filthy rich or "connected" and important) have you read about or know who have receive organ transplants? I haven't heard of any. (No doubt Dick Cheney can have a dozen hearts if he needs them, but that doesn't mean it's right.) I have a condition that the only fix for is a heart/lung transplant ... but I'm 65. I no more expect to even have my name on the list for a new heart and lungs than I expect to not be 65. The position on a list of those needing various transplants is determined by a variety of factors. Age is one of them. In most circumstances that is. We all know Dick Cheney won't be bound by the rules for the rest of us mortals.

It is just a sign of the times. It is easier to be generous and feel alturistic when things are going good for people. When people struggle and see that the politicians get more irrational, jobs become more scarce, and their savings are going to disappear, the alturistic efforts go out the window.

Add to that the fact that people are affraid of loosing their medicaid and ss when they get old...Still some people would be alturistic, but the pool gets smaller and smaller.

Butterfly: Use somelogic. The only reason you are aware of those celebrities getting their transplants is because they are celebrities. You are obviously not aware of the thousands of average Americans without "suitcases of case" getting organ donations. You are seriously misinformed, which is your right of course, but why discourage anyone else from hellping someone rather than taking their organs to their grave?

I have the same questions you have Butterfly. But one doesn't throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater. Those 3 different cases should be cause for being sure that one's notoriety, celebrity, fame, or wealth does not determine how quickly one gets a precious one of the few organs available.

They get the transplants because they have the money to travel and be on more lists.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-25-jobs-transplant_N.htm

If you're dead, what do your organs matter to you? What do "jerks" matter to you?

Well said, Jackie. Well said.

I think my family would care more about my organs going to a jerk than my being altruistic.

I think your family would be proud that you gave your unused organs to save a fellow humans life. No matter how much of a "jerk" they might be. Dispositions are largely subjective. Every "jerk" has at least one person who cares about them.

Luvenia 48: Profound.

I have to agree with you on that. It should be legal to sell your own organs, and that would solve the shortage problem as well. Capitalism still works.

What is the value of your organs? Please give me a dollar amount. I would love to know how much I need to pay you for just one of your kidneys to save the life of my child. Please tell me how much my childs life is worth because it will be the amount of your kidney.

I'd sell a kidney for $50,000 if it were legal to sell them, but it's not, so, sorry, the life of your child is apparantly not worth the time it would take a politician to draft, vote on and sign a bill reversing the illegality of selling our own organs.

Think about it. You really want people selling their organs for cash? Legally? It's not going to happen because we don't 'harvest' people for their body parts. Wow. Seriously, are you over 12?

Only 50K...I would have given you 10 million. Not very business savvy with your "valuable" organs.

Your beneficiaries aren't going to get any money from your organs rotting away in the ground, either. if they somehow profited from you keeping your organs, your argument would be valid, but since they get no compensation either way, I really don't see why the fact that you receive no compensation for organ donations should make a difference. Either way, you have no money, but one way, you're helping save lives.

Mitch. You are living proof that altruism is dying. Giving to strangers is the highest form of giving. There is no selfish motive involved. It is pure altruism. Who knows when you or those you love may be in need of altruism, or organs from strangers. Are you wealthy enough to pay to be, or those you love to be, at the head of the line?

Mitch-if I had my way, I would deny Medicare and Medicaid to anyone who refuses to donate. I am just as opposed to paying for medical care for selfish, intolerant people as you are to donating unless your heirs profit financially. If you want to leave lots of money to your survivors, have at it. But to refuse to help someone else in desperate need, even though you aren't going to be using those parts anymore and they will end up going to waste, is so hateful and wrong that I almost feel sorry for you. I'm so glad I'm not in your family. I wouldn't want any inheritance that was associated with your meaness.

You really want people selling their organs for cash? Legally?

Yes. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to do with their own bodies as long as it doesn't trample on the legal rights of others.

It's not going to happen because we don't 'harvest' people for their body parts.

China does, and there's no shortage of organs there... besides, it's not harvesting people, it's allowing people to sell themselves.

Only 50K...I would have given you 10 million. Not very business savvy with your "valuable" organs.

Actually organs such as kidneys that can be donated without causing the death of the donor become much less valuable when you allow for their legal sale. $50k would likely be much higher than the fair market value if it were legal to sell one's own kidneys. The only reason kidney's are so "valuable" right now is because it's illegal for people to sell their own kidneys which skews the supply / price curve.

I would deny Medicare and Medicaid to anyone who refuses to donate.

So instead of allowing fair market value to dictate the price, you would force the poor to sell their organs for pennies on the dollar of what they'd be worth? Good thing you're not running the world then... that's not very altruistic at all, lol.

People want money for body parts that are no longer in use since you are dead, no wonder we have so many hungry and homeless people in America. What ever happened to helping your fellow man?

People want money for body parts that are no longer in use since you are dead

Some organs can be donated while the donor is still alive, how do you not know that?

What ever happened to helping your fellow man?

God helps those who help themselves.

You don't think people in this country have always put their own interests first?

It's not about putting your own intersts first. It's about being ignorant AND not using any logic. If you're dead, how are you "putting your own interests first" by taking your organs xis feet underground with you?

Exactly, AP. If people/people's families somehow benefited from their deceased's organs rotting away in the ground, these arguments would hold water. However, if you're not benefitting from your organs either way, why wouldn't you choose the way that saves lives?

Okay, how about this for a logical argument? I don't want to. No explanation necessary.

No, Zip, I don't think they have always put their own interests first. I think some people always put their own interests first. But I think the number of people who do now is rather startling. And I think it has a great deal to do with the rot that infects our nation.

So Angry Guy. Why not? Why don't you want to? Think how different your life might have been if no one wanted to: (1) build and pay for schools; (2) build and pay for roads, fire protection, police protection, national defense (why should a soldier risk his life for people he doesn't know?), or any of the other and myriad ways that Americans have done things that benefitted people they don't know or who might not even be born yet.

The Angry Guy--It is so sad to read a post like yours. Some horrible damage or disappointment has been done to you. But being disappointed or hurt is unfortunately part of life. Maybe if you did something really, really nice for another person--for instance a child attached to a dialysis machine 5 times a week, you would feel better about things and you would deserve a new name on Newsvine. (I bet everyone knows you are angry even without reading your selfish, nasty posts.) Compassion & kindness have a way of making you feel better. You ought to try some. (kidney donor, September 2006, thanks to Stanford Univ and Lucille Packard Childrens Hospital)

To:jjdcc: Don't generalize. Many people still would go out on a limb for others. However, if you know that your organs are going to the person that has more money, or more conections, and not the person in the waiting list, it is natural to become selfish.

It's not about putting your own intersts first. It's about being ignorant AND not using any logic. If you're dead, how are you "putting your own interests first" by taking your organs xis feet underground with you?

The logic was spelled out in earlier posts for you.

If someone I care about needs an organ, I will help them out by paying for a trip to China where they can buy organs that will be forcibly harvested from political prisoners instead of waiting on a list for an organ that may never come.

That easy huh??? Good luck with that in the future. And I was right, you officially look like an A$$ now.

Actually it is pretty easy to get organs in China. There is a large market in China to sell organs to Americans that go there to get organs.

That's just an out and out lie.

Really, educate yourself. You're embarrassing.

Im surprised you did'nt throw in the "I know a guy who got an organ from China". The more you try and argue your way out of your selfishness and cold hearted attitude the more of a jack-a$$ you look like.

Because it's really more ethical to receive an organ forcibly harvested from somebody who is still living, who had no choice in the matter because he happened to oppose a Communist regime, than it is to receive an organ from somebody who willingly donated it because they were dead and didn't need it anymore?

educate yourself.

Unfortunately for you, I did.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8222732.stm

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=20d0fa3c-f0a4-4767-ab09-25456c176c4b

Foreign patients who travel to China for transplants are likely receiving organs culled from political prisoners who are alive when their corneas, kidneys and livers are harvested, then left to die, an international group of doctors armed with a chilling Canadian report is warning.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=28473d76-838e-40a8-9d27-201f5485ec88&k=53645

As transplant lists grow longer, more Americans are traveling to China for organs.

http://organharvestinvestigation.net/media/organ_trade_in_china.htm

Still, many patients need transplants and so they travel to China to get the organs of executed prisoners

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/patients-fly-out-to-buy-organs/2007/12/25/1198345010222.html

DESPERATELY ill Australians are travelling overseas to buy body organs taken from impoverished people or executed prisoners, according to experts.

Sorry what was that complete Bull@!$%# you were trying to peddle about organ transplant tourism being a myth AP? I couldn't hear what you were saying in light of the contradicting facts.

Because it's really more ethical to receive an organ forcibly harvested from somebody who is still living, who had no choice in the matter because he happened to oppose a Communist regime, than it is to receive an organ from somebody who willingly donated it because they were dead and didn't need it anymore?

Because it's faster, not because it's more ethical. Ask a dieing person if they care more about ethics than saving their own life. Those who claim they care more about ethics do so only because they are not in a financial position to do otherwise and hope for a better afterlife after they die while sitting on the waiting list here.

As a side-note, I find it very ironic how those CLAIMING to be altruistic are the same ones that expect others to just give them things without paying them for those things and will complain and even call those people names if they don't give them their posessions... and we're supposed to be the "greedy" ones according to these people... LOL

If you want to donate, nobody's stopping you, but just because other people have some concerns that you don't doesn't make them self centered and selfish.

Organ donation is not a cure. Organs are not like car parts. The recipient must take drugs for the rest of their lives to prevent rejection. It is expensive and wastes precious medical dollars.

I am not an organ donor (other than blood) for this reason. It turns an acute medical condition (failing organ) into a chronic medical condition (organ rejection treatments). Plus due to the suppression of the immune system, organ recipients are at increased risk of infection and cancer. Each individual organ recipient benefits, but at a huge medical cost. Kidney transplants are the most justifiable because with live donors there is better tissue matching and the organs (kidneys) are in better shape and last longer. However, ethically I strongly disagree with any doctor operating on a healthy individual to remove an organ. Heart, lung, and liver transplants are a waste of precious medical dollars.

Guess we should stop insulin for diabetics, thyrosin for people with low thyroid function and we should just out and out quit internal defibilators and pacemakers. After all these are not "cures" and they do waste quite a bit of money.

Well Z1P2, if you desperately needed an organ transplant, and a person such as yourself, or Dale3242 had to decide whether or not you got it, I suspect you would quickly have a different opinion. Dale3242. So, in your opinion, rather than get a needed transplant, because they need management afterwards, then, in your opinion, these people should just- die? Dale, Kharma is going to have a field day with your cold heart. And finally, Delgena, you give me some small hope that the human race might still deserve to survive.

So since it's chronic, they should just die now instead of taking medication and possibly dying later? Tell that to someone with liver failure - yeah, you should just die, your life isn't worth the money it would cost and you'll just die later anyways.

Yeah, well, ZIP, you haven't expressed many concerns that make any sense, so the only explanation left is pure old selfishness and self-centeredness. Let us hope you never meet yourself when you need something.

Dale ... make your argument to someone who is living because of an expensive medical procedure that puts them at some risk for cancer instead of the surety of death with a failing heart or lungs or liver. I'm sure they will truly understand the logic of your argument.

Question? Do you need a heart transplant. It rather sounds like you have none at all.

Dale... in case my friends Littleoldlady 3, Jackie, Delgena and Richard haven't gotten your attention, I have to add my utter shock at your reactionary sense of medicine. We aren't in the 3rd century. Surgeons who remove organs from healthy, willing donors are not in any way behaving unethically. It is unethical to let people suffer needlessly and die from manageable conditions. Your understanding of anti-rejection drugs is incomplete, at best. If you don't want to donate then don't, (although you appear to already be brain dead and would make a fine donor candidate). But please keep your inaccurate, absurd justifications to yourself. A lie repeated frequently enough can often take on the appearance of truth.

To Delgena and the rest. Insulin costs about $200 or less a month for a diabetic. Plus there isn't a huge up front medical cost. A kidney transplant (http://www.transplantliving.org/beforethetransplant/finance/costs.aspx) costs $259,000 for the surgery and 220 days of care. The cost per year for anti-rejection drugs is then about $2500 (range of $1000 to $3000) per month. There is just no real comparison.

I find it interesting the personal attacks on me when I am just pointing out the hard facts. I am not telling anyone not to be an organ donor. I just find it very troubling that those in favor of organ transplantation vilify those who question the wisdom of spending so much on so few. I see it as a mirage. Perhaps in the future, it should be possible to grow organs from a person's own cells. Until then, why not spend more money on research to achieve this. We all die. We should not emulate the Vidiians. (Star Trek Voyager).

Dale. Please compare the costs & complications associated with dialysis with those of transplant. Most insurers won't pay for transplant until the patient has been on dialysis for months, if not years. Many people needing new kidneys are diabetic but certainly not all. Dialysis, not insulin, is the commonality. If you are against transplantation based on cost, "the wisdom of spending so much on so few," I assume you are equally against the millions spent keeping "super-preemie babies" alive. Many, if not most, will have chronic health and developmental problems and may need special education, occupational and speech therapy and other supportive services for years. If they make it. So what about them? Will you be the one to tell the parents of these children the hard facts: that their baby isn't worth the cost?

Nevermind Dale, The Star Trek reference summed up everything about you. Just to let you know...listen carefully now and you may want to sit down for this...Star Trek is make believe.

I find it ironic that the same people pretending to be the altruistic ones are the same ones tossing out insult grenades right and left toward anyone that doesn't think and believe exactly the same as they do.

Don't worry, if I or any of my loved ones ever needs an organ, we won't wait around on the waiting list in this country... that's for suckers. I'll go buy the organs I need from China where they forcibly harvest them from political prisoners, and the whole affair would cost less as well.

Z1P2 and Dale. I wouldn't want to be either of you when you leave this circle and go to the spirit trail. Neither of you will have a happy walk there.

Don't let the door hit you in the arse when you leave.

LOL, the "altruistic" ones are now bordering on deathwishing others that refuse to give them our property. Ironic.

As for the afterlife, I'm not too worried about it. I have faith that Jesus' blood is sufficient to pay the debts for my sins in life. But don't let that stop you from wishing ill and harm to me and the others that disagree with you.

I may not be willing to give my organs away for free, but even I wouldn't wish harm on others.

Spirit trail. Not going to be pleasant for you. Not at all. But, fortunately, that's your problem, not mine. You WILL have to deal with that. Period. Oh, and JC won't be too happy with your callous comments about forced organ donors either. But you can deal with that after the long walk down the spirit trail. I pity you.

Good luck to you and your mother! I for one would be thrilled if some use could be made of my organs after I no longer need them! From what I can tell, even just to organize where the organs go, your heart still has to be beating so there is as little time without blood flow as possible. I'm pretty sure the ER staff, etc. are going to do their best to keep you alive either way.

REST ASSURED - we do a BEAUTIFUL job in the US of asking families about donation and 50+% of the time - people say yes. (more where I live) This is an ODD article, and doesn't exactly reflect the realities of organ donation. (I work in this field) There are misperceptions GALORE about donation and this article and these comments show that perfectly. American's say yes more than most other places around the world (except Spain and one other country...and it's a MARGINAL difference). PLENTY to feel proud about as an American when it comes to organ donation!

ps. There are dramatically fewer donors-per-million in Canada than there are in the US. Canadians waiting for organ transplants wait longer and are more likely to die waiting than in the US. While it might seem like our fee-for-service system is not fair, our population says YES to donation more often and more people are getting transplanted per capita.

If the patient has put "organ and tissue donor" on their driver's lic or state-issued ID - consent from the family isn't necessary. It's first-person consent...a gift upon death. It is rare that donation would go forward AGAINST family wishes - but their consent isn't always necessary. Just fyi.

That's why it's important to tell your family your wishes. Just in case your ID is lost and/or your family doesn't know what you would want. It's listed on my drivers license, and my husband, mother, and sisters all know my view on the subject.

pps. NO ONE looks for a driver's license to determine donor designation status as a final determination. There's a registry number that OPO's use (organ procurement organizations) to determine the most up to date information. That little plastic card is good for you to see - but it's not necessary.

I challenge you to name ONE INSTANCE of someone getting an organ immediately because they have money. And before you say "Steve Jobs"...I'd be sure to know what you're talking about with re: his health and place on the list.

In each region, patients get listed for organs and get transplanted according to who is sickest. (except for kidneys - that has to do with "days on the list" - and that system might change) Pediatric recipients come first - and then it's according to need.

It's SO VERY EASY to assume (without facts) that money makes a difference as to who gets transplanted. I challenge you to substantiate that it works that way in the US. (See UNOS.org) There is an entire WORLD dedicated to making sure the system is fair and unrelated to an individual advantages.

I equate this sort of "oh the system is fixed" as a way to express mistrust and opt out of doing the right thing.

Pennsylvania Gov. Robert P. Casey