7 ms·

I’m thankful for the heart donor who saved my newborn daughter’s life last week. My daughter contracted Coxsackie B enterovirus at 2 weeks old, and it scarred

I’m thankful for the heart donor who saved my newborn daughter’s life last week. My daughter contracted Coxsackie B enterovirus at 2 weeks old, and it scarred her left ventricle beyond repair. Her donor has given her a second chance. Another family had to make a heartbreaking choice at a devastating moment, and they chose to give life to my daughter and probably several other gravely ill infants. Check your organ donor status please. Happy Thanksgiving.

arkitaip 7y ago
That's really great to hear. I wish your daughter and family the best.
27182818284 7y ago
That's amazing! I'm super happy for you and your family! Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation.
- vageli 7y ago
  > That's amazing! I'm super happy for you and your family! > Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation. While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem.
  - 27182818284 7y ago
    >While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem. Ahh you can't leave us hanging with just that. Can you elaborate more?
    - vageli 7y ago
      That's fair—while I think the state should be the owner of last resort (as in the case where no next of kin are available and the deceased did not leave a will or similar documentation of their wishes), I think the ownership of a deceased person's organs should transfer to their next of kin (if and only if the deceased did not express any wishes about their body post mortem), to be disposed of (in the legal sense) as they see fit.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    So who do they belong to? The earth that they’re eventually going back to? I think emotionally I agree with you, but rationally I just cannot explain it.
    - snagglegaggle 7y ago
      Ostensibly they should belong to the estate of the deceased. As it is now, in the US (as I understand it) organs and body tissue is in this weird limbo of not being considered property. The original case law around this seems to exist to: 1) make it hard to go after doctors who do things you don't like with your discarded tissue (either destroying it, or giving it to the state for evidence), and 2) prevent trafficking in humans and their organs. The second part seems to mean that only certain types of nonprofits can accept organs. From there they may or may not be able to profit off of the sale of the organ but instead the services to transport and maintain it. Then at a certain point, you've turned penises into lip filler, and then you can sell the lip filler (at a huge profit).
    - vageli 7y ago
      I replied elsewhere in the thread, but in a tldr kind of way: I think next of kin should get the organs (or the estate, as another commenter mentioned). In the case where there is no next of kin and the deceased did not express their wishes (in a will or similar), then, and only then, should the state gain custody of the body and dispose of it as the state sees fit.
      - happysadpanda2 7y ago
        I'd disagree with "as the state sees fit". I have no problems with my organs being used to help others, either as direct spare parts for others, or for medical research. But I'd take issue with (well, I'd be dead, so I could no longer take issue, but you catch my drift) my organs being used for just about any other type of research, since that could include research into better ways of killing one another, which I would consider a "bad thing".
        SubuSS 7y ago
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    The Netherlands is switching to opt-out, it is a thing of huge controversy here.
    - C1sc0cat 7y ago
      Interesting it wasn't in the UK which has just done that
  - cgrealy 7y ago
    I'm all for opt-out for a very simple reason.... doctors don't have to bother families in the midst of grief. If you don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of your organs (I'd argue it's the recipient that ultimately ends up owning them, but whatever), then you can opt out.
    - NamTaf 7y ago
      It’s odd here in AU. It is opt-in, but I still (as the de facto partner) had to give final authorisation to go ahead with it. I don’t quite get it, and wish it was more respectful of the deceased. It’s worth noting though that the process of saying yes and sorting that all out was in fact incredibly healing and cathartic for me. I wouldn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing for grieving families to be involved in.
  - tlrobinson 7y ago
    While not strictly relevant, your comment reminded me of this article about how hard it apparently is to get the skull of a deceased relative in the US: “You Can’t Keep Your Parents’ Skulls” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/why-you-cant-display-your-relatives-skull/597307/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/why-you-... (the Google searches it took me to find that article surely put me on some watch lists...)
    - vageli 7y ago
      This was fascinating and something I've never given even a passing thought to. I had long imagined most skeletons were plastic replicas and not the real deal. Thanks for sharing it!
  - michaelt 7y ago
    I've heard a proposal for a alternative to opt-in and opt-out which is 'forced choice' How it works is a form to do some other thing (for example, get a driving license) has a checkbox to donate and one to not donate, and the form is rejected as incomplete if you don't choose one or the other. This of course means you don't have to apply a default to those people, because they've made an explicit choice already. Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread.
    - croon 7y ago
      > Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread. It could be opt-in or opt-out for everyone else. You don't have to solve the problem perfectly to make it better than it is today.
    - saiya-jin 7y ago
      An idea - this binary choice can be attached to combination of reaching adulthood (18 or similar) and combination of obtaining state ID / passport. For younger, parents can choose. If somebody wants to argue about teens, they can decide themselves / be not-decided by their choice until reaching adulthood.
- hereme888 7y ago
  According to ethics textbooks, even if a person opted-in, the family could still say no to the doctors after the donor passed away.
  - NamTaf 7y ago
    This is the option I was given in Australia. I don’t quite understand it (I can see arguments, I’m not sure however if they’re valid), but I’m glad not for the choice but rather that I was involved in the process. It was healing.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MikeTheGreat 7y ago
  I personally like the idea of allowing others to make use of these useful organs, especially since the original owner can't use them anymore and they'll decay within days (if not hours). That said I don't agree with forcing people to something they don't want to and I know that there are at least a couple of religions out there that forbid cutting up the body after death. The 'forced choice' option (in one of the other comments) is a really good one, IMHO
  - cjbprime 7y ago
    > That said I don't agree with forcing people to something they don't want to It is hard to argue both that not donating one's organs would be a strongly held religious belief, and that someone would not care about it enough to communicate that desire by just opting out.
irjustin 7y ago
Wow, I'm super thankful for hearing that and as a father of a 2 year old it makes me extremely sad and happy at the same time. Great thanksgiving it is - Tearing up over here at my desk...
ryeguy_24 7y ago
So great to read about this on Thanksgiving night. Just had a lovely day with my daughter (20 months). She has added so much joy to my family's life. We hope to do the same for her. You have so much to look forward to. Congrats on fatherhood.
paulie_a 7y ago
That is great! I contacted an unknown virus that basically destroyed my heart this year. Currently I do not need a transplant but will eventually. I'm thankful for not dieing and my sister for saving my life.
the_arun 7y ago
This is so nice to hear & thanks for sharing it with us. Believe it or not, just today I was watching "Transplanting Hope" in Amazon Prime (NOVA). Was able to connect immediately!
hi41 7y ago
I am happy for your family. I am an organ donor. I am also planning to donate my body to a medical institution so that the medical students have a human body to dissect and learn from. I hear that there is a dearth of human bodies. Since the topic of organ donation came up, I thought of asking this question. This is a real incident. I am not making this up. I met a learned priest. Both I and the priest are hindus. He argued that since God gave us our body and organs at birth, we need to give it back to God the body and all the organs at death. I don't agree with the priests argument. It is just that I am not that smart and don't know how to counter that argument. I am sure there are hindu readers in HN community. Any thoughts on this?
- protomyth 7y ago
  When you say "priest", do you mean Catholic priest? It makes a bit of a difference since their are various church decisions on the subject.
  - vmurthy 7y ago
    Nah. The OP mentions "Hindu" priest.
    - protomyth 7y ago
      Missed that, thanks.
  - User23 7y ago
    In case anyone is curious, Catholics actually do have similar concerns about bodily integrity. In contrast to Hinduism, cremation is discouraged. It’s interesting that the same justification has been used both for and against cremation. However organ donation is permitted on the grounds that God approves of life-giving generosity
- vmurthy 7y ago
  I am a Hindu myself and I am NOT an atheist. There are two ways I understand the situation: 1. You could argue back to the priest that your organ donation is going to save lives which God would appreciate anyway and have your way :D 2. More broadly, one of the lessons of history [0] is that what begins as a practical way to do something becomes codified into religion because it's far more efficient to get the message across generations. I'd like to believe that burning the body (as many Hindus do) is one such [ Not burning the body may have caused infections and what not in tribal settlements long long ago ] . This being the case, organ donation is a safe way, too. If you're the more scientific kind, you can use this to further convince yourself to donate the body. I know I would use both 1&2 :) [0] I read about this when researching how Halal and some other practises came about. I will try to dig up the reference but it was ages ago :(
jrumbut 7y ago
Something similar (viral heart damage) happened to my wife this year and I just can't imagine how terrifying that must have been to happen to your child. It's bad enough for an adult. Thankful that we both got a second chance this year!
vmurthy 7y ago
I can't imagine the uncertainty and the pain you would have gone through but this news is truly something that gives everyone goosebumps :). Good luck for everything ahead, mate!
big_chungus 7y ago
This concern has held me back from becoming an organ donor: there have been concerns [0] [1] for many years about use of donor tissue in plastic surgery. I'm more than happy to get turned into life-saving donor parts, but am not okay with being turned into lip fillers for someone to sell to some diva. How can I make sure that my organs go _only_ to life-saving causes? [0]: https://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Some-donated-tissue-sold-for-cosmetic-surgery-1501934.php https://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Some-donated-tissu... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22822698 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22822698
- munmaek 7y ago
  If I’m dead then I don’t think I’d really care much at that point. If more of my dead body can be utilized before it becomes waste, then that’s cool.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Fine, but the point is that I do. I'd like to become an organ donor, and an organ donor _only_. How do I ensure I can do some good without getting cut up for plastic surgery?
frosted-flakes 7y ago
That family made both a heart saving choice and a heartbreaking one. That other baby's heart lives on in your daughter. This past summer, my late-20s brother was killed when he was hit by a car while riding his bike. He was an organ donor, and because his heart never stopped beating, his organs (including his heart) went to six or seven other people. But don't just check your organ donor status, tell the people you love that you're an organ donor. It was completely by chance that we found out that my brother was one just a few days before the accident, and we never found his wallet or his driver's licence, so we probably wouldn't have known his wishes otherwise.
NamTaf 7y ago
When my partner died (4 years ago now), this was one of the first things I got in order. The AUS organ donor registry was on the ball and actually contacted me first as soon as her death was flagged with with government (these things are time-critical), but I found it incredibly healing to go through the process of sorting this at a time when everything was spiralling out of control and understand that her death wasn’t entirely in vain. I’ll never know who her skin went on to help, but I know she’d be overjoyed to know she made another final contribution to science.
hycaria 7y ago
I opted out of organ donation in a country which enables it by default. Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, I don't see any good in it, sorry.
- majos 7y ago
  Confused. You think organ donation is bad because it saves lives that should end for the sake of...maybe a slightly stronger species? Do you disagree with the practice of medicine in general or something?
  - hycaria 7y ago
    Everything not curative.
- munmaek 7y ago
  Do you also abstain from - hospitals - medicine - glasses / other similar implements - any other human altering measures? We closed the door on natural evolution a long time ago. Most of us are already cyborgs with our phones and computers. Any future evolution will be done by us (I.e. more advanced cyborgs cyborgs / genetic modification).
  - hycaria 7y ago
    Everything not curative for a problem that doesn't let you live without treatment is an aberration. Since organ donation is not saving people, but enabling to be dependent on donations every 10 years and immunosuppressants in between (except for cornea transplants), I don't want to enable it. The much anticipated collapse will apply those sort of rules soon enough anyways.
    - munmaek 7y ago
      ... glasses would fall under that scope. It's not helpful to still be thinking in such antiquated ways like evolution through the fittest survivors. Humans have not done that for quite a long time, in pretty much every facet of our society you can find that. As I said, genetic modification and cyber augmentation will be how we evolve moving forward. Advances in medicine has (and will) make worrying about evolution a headscratcher. > Since organ donation is not saving people, [Citation Needed]. I would imagine there's many cases, such as accidents, where someone would need an organ and then be perfectly fine afterwards.
C1sc0cat 7y ago
I was just about to say the same about organ donation status. I am very thankful my Kidney donor and to all the teams that support me post and pre transplant.

arkitaip 7y ago

That's really great to hear. I wish your daughter and family the best.

27182818284 7y ago

That's amazing! I'm super happy for you and your family! Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation.

vageli 7y ago
> That's amazing! I'm super happy for you and your family! > Your comment gave me pause because it reminded me that it is opt-in not opt-out. It is an election cycle, I wonder if we could convince one of the candidates to switch us to opt-out rather than opt-in for organ donation. While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem.
- 27182818284 7y ago
  >While I am personally an organ donor, I don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of my organs post mortem. Ahh you can't leave us hanging with just that. Can you elaborate more?
  - vageli 7y ago
    That's fair—while I think the state should be the owner of last resort (as in the case where no next of kin are available and the deceased did not leave a will or similar documentation of their wishes), I think the ownership of a deceased person's organs should transfer to their next of kin (if and only if the deceased did not express any wishes about their body post mortem), to be disposed of (in the legal sense) as they see fit.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  So who do they belong to? The earth that they’re eventually going back to? I think emotionally I agree with you, but rationally I just cannot explain it.
  - snagglegaggle 7y ago
    Ostensibly they should belong to the estate of the deceased. As it is now, in the US (as I understand it) organs and body tissue is in this weird limbo of not being considered property. The original case law around this seems to exist to: 1) make it hard to go after doctors who do things you don't like with your discarded tissue (either destroying it, or giving it to the state for evidence), and 2) prevent trafficking in humans and their organs. The second part seems to mean that only certain types of nonprofits can accept organs. From there they may or may not be able to profit off of the sale of the organ but instead the services to transport and maintain it. Then at a certain point, you've turned penises into lip filler, and then you can sell the lip filler (at a huge profit).
  - vageli 7y ago
    I replied elsewhere in the thread, but in a tldr kind of way: I think next of kin should get the organs (or the estate, as another commenter mentioned). In the case where there is no next of kin and the deceased did not express their wishes (in a will or similar), then, and only then, should the state gain custody of the body and dispose of it as the state sees fit.
    - happysadpanda2 7y ago
      I'd disagree with "as the state sees fit". I have no problems with my organs being used to help others, either as direct spare parts for others, or for medical research. But I'd take issue with (well, I'd be dead, so I could no longer take issue, but you catch my drift) my organs being used for just about any other type of research, since that could include research into better ways of killing one another, which I would consider a "bad thing".
      - SubuSS 7y ago
- jacquesm 7y ago
  The Netherlands is switching to opt-out, it is a thing of huge controversy here.
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    Interesting it wasn't in the UK which has just done that
- cgrealy 7y ago
  I'm all for opt-out for a very simple reason.... doctors don't have to bother families in the midst of grief. If you don't believe the state should be the defacto owner of your organs (I'd argue it's the recipient that ultimately ends up owning them, but whatever), then you can opt out.
  - NamTaf 7y ago
    It’s odd here in AU. It is opt-in, but I still (as the de facto partner) had to give final authorisation to go ahead with it. I don’t quite get it, and wish it was more respectful of the deceased. It’s worth noting though that the process of saying yes and sorting that all out was in fact incredibly healing and cathartic for me. I wouldn’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing for grieving families to be involved in.
- tlrobinson 7y ago
  While not strictly relevant, your comment reminded me of this article about how hard it apparently is to get the skull of a deceased relative in the US: “You Can’t Keep Your Parents’ Skulls” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/why-you-cant-display-your-relatives-skull/597307/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/why-you-... (the Google searches it took me to find that article surely put me on some watch lists...)
  - vageli 7y ago
    This was fascinating and something I've never given even a passing thought to. I had long imagined most skeletons were plastic replicas and not the real deal. Thanks for sharing it!
- michaelt 7y ago
  I've heard a proposal for a alternative to opt-in and opt-out which is 'forced choice' How it works is a form to do some other thing (for example, get a driving license) has a checkbox to donate and one to not donate, and the form is rejected as incomplete if you don't choose one or the other. This of course means you don't have to apply a default to those people, because they've made an explicit choice already. Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread.
  - croon 7y ago
    > Of course, you still have to work out what you'll do with people who haven't filled out the form - like the newborn baby mentioned at the start of this thread. It could be opt-in or opt-out for everyone else. You don't have to solve the problem perfectly to make it better than it is today.
  - saiya-jin 7y ago
    An idea - this binary choice can be attached to combination of reaching adulthood (18 or similar) and combination of obtaining state ID / passport. For younger, parents can choose. If somebody wants to argue about teens, they can decide themselves / be not-decided by their choice until reaching adulthood.
hereme888 7y ago
According to ethics textbooks, even if a person opted-in, the family could still say no to the doctors after the donor passed away.
- NamTaf 7y ago
  This is the option I was given in Australia. I don’t quite understand it (I can see arguments, I’m not sure however if they’re valid), but I’m glad not for the choice but rather that I was involved in the process. It was healing.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
MikeTheGreat 7y ago
I personally like the idea of allowing others to make use of these useful organs, especially since the original owner can't use them anymore and they'll decay within days (if not hours). That said I don't agree with forcing people to something they don't want to and I know that there are at least a couple of religions out there that forbid cutting up the body after death. The 'forced choice' option (in one of the other comments) is a really good one, IMHO
- cjbprime 7y ago
  > That said I don't agree with forcing people to something they don't want to It is hard to argue both that not donating one's organs would be a strongly held religious belief, and that someone would not care about it enough to communicate that desire by just opting out.

irjustin 7y ago

Wow, I'm super thankful for hearing that and as a father of a 2 year old it makes me extremely sad and happy at the same time. Great thanksgiving it is - Tearing up over here at my desk...

ryeguy_24 7y ago

So great to read about this on Thanksgiving night. Just had a lovely day with my daughter (20 months). She has added so much joy to my family's life. We hope to do the same for her. You have so much to look forward to. Congrats on fatherhood.

paulie_a 7y ago

That is great! I contacted an unknown virus that basically destroyed my heart this year. Currently I do not need a transplant but will eventually. I'm thankful for not dieing and my sister for saving my life.

the_arun 7y ago

This is so nice to hear & thanks for sharing it with us. Believe it or not, just today I was watching "Transplanting Hope" in Amazon Prime (NOVA). Was able to connect immediately!

hi41 7y ago

I am happy for your family. I am an organ donor. I am also planning to donate my body to a medical institution so that the medical students have a human body to dissect and learn from. I hear that there is a dearth of human bodies. Since the topic of organ donation came up, I thought of asking this question. This is a real incident. I am not making this up. I met a learned priest. Both I and the priest are hindus. He argued that since God gave us our body and organs at birth, we need to give it back to God the body and all the organs at death. I don't agree with the priests argument. It is just that I am not that smart and don't know how to counter that argument. I am sure there are hindu readers in HN community. Any thoughts on this?

protomyth 7y ago
When you say "priest", do you mean Catholic priest? It makes a bit of a difference since their are various church decisions on the subject.
- vmurthy 7y ago
  Nah. The OP mentions "Hindu" priest.
  - protomyth 7y ago
    Missed that, thanks.
- User23 7y ago
  In case anyone is curious, Catholics actually do have similar concerns about bodily integrity. In contrast to Hinduism, cremation is discouraged. It’s interesting that the same justification has been used both for and against cremation. However organ donation is permitted on the grounds that God approves of life-giving generosity
vmurthy 7y ago
I am a Hindu myself and I am NOT an atheist. There are two ways I understand the situation: 1. You could argue back to the priest that your organ donation is going to save lives which God would appreciate anyway and have your way :D 2. More broadly, one of the lessons of history [0] is that what begins as a practical way to do something becomes codified into religion because it's far more efficient to get the message across generations. I'd like to believe that burning the body (as many Hindus do) is one such [ Not burning the body may have caused infections and what not in tribal settlements long long ago ] . This being the case, organ donation is a safe way, too. If you're the more scientific kind, you can use this to further convince yourself to donate the body. I know I would use both 1&2 :) [0] I read about this when researching how Halal and some other practises came about. I will try to dig up the reference but it was ages ago :(

jrumbut 7y ago

Something similar (viral heart damage) happened to my wife this year and I just can't imagine how terrifying that must have been to happen to your child. It's bad enough for an adult. Thankful that we both got a second chance this year!

vmurthy 7y ago

I can't imagine the uncertainty and the pain you would have gone through but this news is truly something that gives everyone goosebumps :). Good luck for everything ahead, mate!

big_chungus 7y ago

This concern has held me back from becoming an organ donor: there have been concerns [0] [1] for many years about use of donor tissue in plastic surgery. I'm more than happy to get turned into life-saving donor parts, but am not okay with being turned into lip fillers for someone to sell to some diva. How can I make sure that my organs go _only_ to life-saving causes? [0]: https://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Some-donated-tissue-sold-for-cosmetic-surgery-1501934.php https://www.chron.com/news/health/article/Some-donated-tissu... [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22822698 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22822698

munmaek 7y ago
If I’m dead then I don’t think I’d really care much at that point. If more of my dead body can be utilized before it becomes waste, then that’s cool.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Fine, but the point is that I do. I'd like to become an organ donor, and an organ donor _only_. How do I ensure I can do some good without getting cut up for plastic surgery?

frosted-flakes 7y ago

That family made both a heart saving choice and a heartbreaking one. That other baby's heart lives on in your daughter. This past summer, my late-20s brother was killed when he was hit by a car while riding his bike. He was an organ donor, and because his heart never stopped beating, his organs (including his heart) went to six or seven other people. But don't just check your organ donor status, tell the people you love that you're an organ donor. It was completely by chance that we found out that my brother was one just a few days before the accident, and we never found his wallet or his driver's licence, so we probably wouldn't have known his wishes otherwise.

NamTaf 7y ago

When my partner died (4 years ago now), this was one of the first things I got in order. The AUS organ donor registry was on the ball and actually contacted me first as soon as her death was flagged with with government (these things are time-critical), but I found it incredibly healing to go through the process of sorting this at a time when everything was spiralling out of control and understand that her death wasn’t entirely in vain. I’ll never know who her skin went on to help, but I know she’d be overjoyed to know she made another final contribution to science.

hycaria 7y ago

I opted out of organ donation in a country which enables it by default. Looking at it from an evolutionary point of view, I don't see any good in it, sorry.

majos 7y ago
Confused. You think organ donation is bad because it saves lives that should end for the sake of...maybe a slightly stronger species? Do you disagree with the practice of medicine in general or something?
- hycaria 7y ago
  Everything not curative.
munmaek 7y ago
Do you also abstain from - hospitals - medicine - glasses / other similar implements - any other human altering measures? We closed the door on natural evolution a long time ago. Most of us are already cyborgs with our phones and computers. Any future evolution will be done by us (I.e. more advanced cyborgs cyborgs / genetic modification).
- hycaria 7y ago
  Everything not curative for a problem that doesn't let you live without treatment is an aberration. Since organ donation is not saving people, but enabling to be dependent on donations every 10 years and immunosuppressants in between (except for cornea transplants), I don't want to enable it. The much anticipated collapse will apply those sort of rules soon enough anyways.
  - munmaek 7y ago
    ... glasses would fall under that scope. It's not helpful to still be thinking in such antiquated ways like evolution through the fittest survivors. Humans have not done that for quite a long time, in pretty much every facet of our society you can find that. As I said, genetic modification and cyber augmentation will be how we evolve moving forward. Advances in medicine has (and will) make worrying about evolution a headscratcher. > Since organ donation is not saving people, [Citation Needed]. I would imagine there's many cases, such as accidents, where someone would need an organ and then be perfectly fine afterwards.

C1sc0cat 7y ago

I was just about to say the same about organ donation status. I am very thankful my Kidney donor and to all the teams that support me post and pre transplant.