![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Organ donation
Hmm, I've been pondering this decision on and off today and it still seems utterly perverse.
Assuming that a living related donor is likely to provide the best match for a transplant ie. the ill grandmother is unlikely to ever have a better match than her own dead daughter then it makes sense that the organ goes to that person first as there's less risk of rejection and thus greater likelihood of success.
I don't see what's unethical about a gift with reservation ie. to my family first then if they don't need any of my organs they can go into the general pool. If you can 'ethically' give someone a kidney whilst alive, while not once you're dead. If you're a parent of a kid who needs a heart transplant and you die, why shouldn't you have been able to express in a binding fashion that your heart go to your daughter if you're a suitable match and then if it's not it can go to whoever's at the top of the transplant list. [possibly there's an argument that there would be an incentive to murder relatives to get their organs for transplant purposes, but I don't think of it as particularly strong] Why not allow people to put blood relations and family/friends first?
And yeah, I shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but think how much less hassle there'd be here if the dead woman had done more than express a deathbed wish but had started the process of becoming a living donor.
Assuming that a living related donor is likely to provide the best match for a transplant ie. the ill grandmother is unlikely to ever have a better match than her own dead daughter then it makes sense that the organ goes to that person first as there's less risk of rejection and thus greater likelihood of success.
I don't see what's unethical about a gift with reservation ie. to my family first then if they don't need any of my organs they can go into the general pool. If you can 'ethically' give someone a kidney whilst alive, while not once you're dead. If you're a parent of a kid who needs a heart transplant and you die, why shouldn't you have been able to express in a binding fashion that your heart go to your daughter if you're a suitable match and then if it's not it can go to whoever's at the top of the transplant list. [possibly there's an argument that there would be an incentive to murder relatives to get their organs for transplant purposes, but I don't think of it as particularly strong] Why not allow people to put blood relations and family/friends first?
And yeah, I shouldn't speak ill of the dead, but think how much less hassle there'd be here if the dead woman had done more than express a deathbed wish but had started the process of becoming a living donor.
no subject
Firstly, because who gets 'spare parts' should be determined solely by need (imho) - the *two* people who received this girl's kidneys needed them *now*, whereas the mother wasn't in the same urgent need and can continue to wait (presumably on dialysis, but still alive)
Secondly, because what is to stop someone 'suggesting' that someone "dies faster" or refuses treatment or other non-voluntary euthanasia-type pressures. I massively dislike this "saviour babies" thing of breeding solely to get a cure for a sibling, being able to determine where your bits went after you die is open to the same sort of abuse, with death being the factor rather than life.