4 ms·
It's an honest concern because there's no certain method to decide if somebody is dead or not. "Clinically dead" can mean anything. In addition, my understandi
by redis_mlc 6y ago
It's an honest concern because there's no certain method to decide if somebody is dead or not. "Clinically dead" can mean anything.
In addition, my understanding is that organ transplants require a physically healthy donor for viable organs (heart beating, oxygen reaching organs), so most donors don't look or act dead until their organs are removed.
A lot of the work that Dr. Jack Kevorkian did was on research to decide when people had actually died (he was later involved in assisted-suicide to establish legal precedent for suicides.)
The US Army declined his suggestion to do blood donations from dead soldiers in combat, so it's interesting that a government agency is not in favor of such transplants. Something to think about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kevorkian
So this area is far from black and white, and I fail to understand why people would be opted-in before any of these questions have been addressed.
(In the USA, harvested patients don't get paid for their organs, but my understanding is that the hospital and doctors are paid, so large amounts of money are transacted, and we know what that would lead to.)
- crooked-v 6y ago> The US Army declined his suggestion to do blood donations from dead soldiers in combat Well, obviously, yes, because even before any ethical concerns, that's wildly impractical in every possible sense. Soldiers are already carrying around 40-60 pounds of gear and now you want them to transport blood transfusion equipment, too?